David Cameron's final thoughts...We need money for to pay for the Olympics...I must rape the poor and the sick as we need to put on a good fireworks display for the world and for fucks sake i must make sure that the rich are safe by not touching there child benefit.
The stupid thing is that AV is basically the same as FPTP, apart from in order for an MP to be elected they need 50% of their constituents support. If none of the candidates do then it goes to the second votes and so on. Does that sounds complicated? Would you really want an MP to represent that may have the most votes, but not more than half? AV is a slightly fairer system and I don’t know about you but I can’t vote for David Cameron because I can’t vote for a politician that lies to my face.
Sadly the only reason why the AV vote was rejected was because it was a pile of trash, the brainless dished out what could only be described as soapy water and they knew the electorate would probably throw it out. The electorate have more sense!
AV was never PR, which was the original vote was supposed to have been about. They knew this, yet when AV was thrown out, our ever so dimwitted representatives, said that it was a clear rejection of PR.
I do not know why our politicians seem to think of the electorate as being some sort of disease, I guess it must be something, that once elected these numb nuts, get into their heads. Maybe it is just down to some cringing power craze?
But there is another weird characteristic, as soon as they are elected, politicians dish the dirt right back onto the electorate. Worse, like some abusive relationship, at the next election, the electorate will simply vote these cuckoos back in ??~
@bigswano its also simple enough, that results in Aus are broadcast immediately after counting has started, and they can do that pendulum swinging thing
@bigswano the results are not released quite that quickly because counting actually starts once the doors are locked in the polling booth it actually takes about 90 minutes in most seats for the results to really start coming in unlike the US where they do exit polling but then again of course they vote on a Thursday (a stupid idea) and the booths close at 10pm instead of 6pm like here.
to say 70 % of the nation is with david cameron is an outright lie, 70% of the turn out were with him, 70% of the nation was not against AV, and this is one of the only two national referendum's, and both sides the liberals and the conservatives did a damn good job of fucking it up. neither side played the game honestly and both parties showed a distinct lack of principle. And this is why you don't get a higher turn out for a god damn national electio - let alone av.
@CelticAngloPress no democracy means rule by the people thats its literal meaning, Preferential voting is still one person one vote you merely preference other candidates you use the same ballot paper, and by the way useless bit of trivia Preferential voting was introduces federally here by the conservative United Australia Party (now the Liberal Party) to avoid tactical voting and vote splitting with the Country Party (now the National Party).
and btw who ever said to me most people didnt wantbalire but eh still won, he was actually elected ina landslide victory unlike the tories, and he was also, by poll, the msot popular pm since winston churchil, now i think he's a lying bastard but before hand i think its safe to say the british public wanted him in.
lets be honest cameron has no backbone, he stood against av so that the fricken out of date backbenchers would castratehim and his testicles into earings for their stuck up wives. What i love most is that Cameron's education, lifestyle ect. put him so far away from the british public i wonder if he's really the man, along with neck clegg, to actually run a country which is not educated by oxford and eton, perhaps britain needs produce a non-elitist politican who understands the national intrest.
Dear David Cameron, before you gloat about "winning", understand that someone who would lie the British people to gather their participation in something for your own self-interest is an enemy of this nation.
"Quite clearly the A V system was rejected by the british electorate. "If it is so good & fair, Why is it not used by more countries? Thank goodness we did not get suckered in to a worthless voting system that we do not need".
@TheDelightfulmiles you know why, its because most countries have Proportional Representation, here in Australia we have Preferential voting and Instant Gregory Proportional Representation, how can you say FPTP is a better system when you can win in a landslide with less than 35% of the vote, here in Australia you'd lose in a landslide with that much of the vote, you'd end up with about 40 seats in the lower house which would mean the government would have 110 seats and 65% of the vote
@TheDelightfulmiles AV=majority rule. FPTP isn't. Follow your leader to oblivion. He is an enemy of this nation. Anybody who would willingly lie to the British public purely for short term self-interest is.
I love his Usain Bolt example... yes David, that is an appropriate metaphor for the Alternative Voting system... well done, through your lies, you managed to fool enough of the British public into voting no... but also, well British public, we had a chance, and we blew it...
I love his Usain Bolt example... yes David, that is an appropriate metaphor for the Alternative Voting system... well done, through your lies, you managed to fool enough of the British public into voting no... but also, well British public, we had a chance, and we blew it...
Dear David Cameron, before you gloat about "winning", understand that financial fraudsters go to jail. Political fraudsters cause worse consequences, and to an entire nation, so their penalty must be worse.
Understand this.
A fraud is nothing to be proud about. Remember this too.
What Cameron conveniently omits to mention here is that he himself was elected leader of the Conservative Party by AV. If AV is good enough for members of the Conservative Party in choosing their leaders, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us in choosing our MPs? What utter, shameless hypocrisy from the Tories. It is a truly depressing moment in British politics that 70 percent of the electorate were taken in by this guile
It's a shame most of Britain were too retarded/apathetic to learn about AV. Or they were just gullible and trusted David Cameron and Darren Gough's opinion on what it means.
@alibasheer so wait, davey here is honestly telling me that if people go to a store looking for a pizza, and then they dont find one, they should just let themselves starve for the night?
As an alternate explanation, Dave could just have said: "I'm voting 'No' to AV because I'm a fucking money-loving Conservative who obviously doesn't give six shits about any member of the English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish public, and as long as I'm making a profit, I don't give a toss!". lol'ing at "'No' to a system which is unfair", LOLWUT!
so can someone explain how this system creates hung parliaments? of course not! they don't. What causes hung parliaments is the three (or more) party system which makes it much less likely to get a majority of 50% compared with the 2 party system such as the US, where you either (generaly) vote democrat or republican. AV has nothing to do with Hung parliaments, so stop making up nonsense to secure your unelected grip on power!
@kensei85 So true. Thanks to the saps who rejected AV, we will be forced to support blue and red ping-pong matches for at least until we can get rid of this Tory Public Rep sell-out of a PM.
@kensei85 regardless of any party preference, don't you understand what Cameron is saying? Perhaps if you listened to what he's saying then maybe you'll see that First Past the Post is easier and the better systems even despite it's flaws.
@georgemullens I do (and FYI I do not support any political party), do you understand that FPTP only works fairly for a 2 party system, in a multi-party system like we have today, the votes are split and more people vote against the winning MPs than for them? This fact means the MAJORITY of votes are being thrown away! AV was far from perfect, but at least it would have been a step in the right direction from the primitive system we are stuck with (for a long time to come).
the only reason he fucking likes it is because the posh twat can get away with forming goverment on a 36% majority. now last time i checked that means 74% of britain didnt want him as prime minister. THE NATIONAL INTREST WAS NOT HIM.
@Supersmooth007 because they had a vested interest in keeping FPTP, they genuinely thought that a system that if you get 55% of the vote you get approximately the same percentage of seats in the house was inferior to a system where 40% of the vote would get you 70% of the seats in the house
May I point out when he says the voters of the BNP would get their votes counted more often than major party supporters he is missing (most likely intentionally) the point that in effect there are multiple rounds to the voting, whereby EACH time the (for example) conservative voter's vote gets counted for the Conservatives. He is glossing over the fact that that person's vote is counted the same every time, to stress the semi-truth that a minority party voter gets multiple distinct votes.
'I need you to go out there and vote no to AV'.. so that I can be elected again. The selfish motives of politicians makes me sick. Stop spreading trash round our streets saying you'll give intensive care babies a maternity unit if we vote no. Gotta love Cameron's acting skills though - staring at his piece of paper when describing AV so as to show how 'confusing' it is. Although tbh i wouldn't be surprised if he was that incompetent.
proportional representative system might have been better, although first past the post ensures that every vote counts and is fair. The policies of each party are so vast that who would want to have a second vote for a Tory if you voted labour first. AV best suites the Minos I.e. Liberals! AV will loose in any case, as the electorate is not convinced it is fair!
It is not just the Tories in favour of AV.....Liberals are because they normally come 3rd.....Even senior Labour Ministers are against AV.....David Blunkett is against it too, like John Ried!!! One person one vote simple & easy just a cross in a box and done"!!! make sure you vote though because your vote counts.
AV is expensive, more confusing and if very few people turn up to vote then surely it would be a waste of money..AV requires a good degree of accuracy and numeracy and results that are distributed can turn out to be disproportional, when compared to PR systems or FPTP, why do you think only 3 countries in world use AV system!? Whats democratic or fair about the person finishing 3rd becoming PM!? look at my video, I explain the advantages & disadvantages, feel free to check it out on my channel.
@Supersmooth007 You literally just made the argument that people are too stupid to write the number 1 in a box, therefore AV is too complex for the British public to understand. Would it blow your mind if I told you there's reading involved on the ballot paper too?
I know the No campaign's talking points are based around treating people like children, but it's nice to see someone come out and literally say it
What is this argument about having votes counted twice? If the conservative party is popular enough with over 50% of the voters, it shouldn't MATTER if they're supporters' second preferences aren't taken into account, because they won't need to be. This argument demonstrates a fear on Cameron's part that his party isn't strong enough, not based on just 1st preferences, but 2nd 3rd 4th etc preferences too, to win at an election under AV. This is a massive inditement against HIS PARTY, not AV....
Everyone is missing the bigger picture.once the voting system is changed, it can lead to further referendums for change to House of Lords, Constitutional Monarchy, change of Human rights law to a constitution. Al the no vote is doing is protecting a the Mother of all parliamentary systems! And still I think 1 man 1 vote is correct!
@halkyn14 HAte to point out the obvious here, but that's kinda how democracy works. Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state , typically through elected representatives. If (but only if, and we can't really know this unless we have further referendums, as polls are usually a load of unrepresentative shite which only ask about 1,000 people vs a population of 60 million...) the population wants these further reforms, they should be granted.
Is AV is more simple than FPTP? I think it is safe to say it isn't. Irregardless of whether you feel the electorate will be able to handle the changes. (I personally think any added complexity will just increase voter apathy). What about a voter that just votes for one candidate (feeling that they alone best represent their views), then, as their candidate gets booted out, ceases to have a vote whilst others around them continue to vote. Doesn't that strike you as unfair?
@l3igT Ok, here's a more simple system than FPTP - whoever I personally like best is the winner. Incredibly simple, therefore better - right?
The problem is FPTP is so simplistic (which is a more accurate word) that it produces really bad results. The absolute least popular candidate, the one the majority would take absolutely anyone else over, can win under FPTP. This is not a good thing! AV takes the time to find a majority consensus - less 'simple' but a better result
@l3igT and everyone puts the candidate they think best represents their views as their 1st preference. If they don't rank anyone else, they're literally saying 'if my first choice is out then I absolutely do not want my vote to count for anyone else' - they're saying that if it's just the other candidates left, and the voters are effectively asked 'who do you prefer', that person would abstain from voting. That's their choice- most people would rank other candidates though, stating their opinion
@cactustactics I disagree, the voter who only votes for one candidate isn't 'abstaining' from the following rounds, they are cut out completely from the following decisions, just because they don't like any other candidates or may not want to vote for 'the lesser of two evils'. I would hasten to add that FPTP does actually produce positive results most of the time, such as strong government (current government excluded on the basis that it is an exception to the rule in a historical sense)
@l3igT No it's actually exactly what they're doing - if they had a preference for anyone in that round they'd have ranked them as a preference, right? That's exactly what preferences are - you put your first choice and then rank the others in order of support, until you run out of people you'd actually bother to back. At each stage the voters are being asked 'who do you prefer out of the remaining candidates?' by looking at their preferences - if they don't prefer any of them, they're not voting
@cactustactics The argument follows that it is unfair that some voters (with more preferences) have more 'bites of the apple' vote-wise than those with one conviction. That appears to be essentially unfair. Just because the voters of one candidate 'have the option' of stating more than one preference and don't, it is unfair that they have a candidate forced upon them by other people's further preferences.
@l3igT And FPTP really doesn't produce positive results most of the time - literally the worst candidate can win. That's not hyperbole - literally the absolute bottom choice (Condorcet loser, wikipedia it), worst result in the majority opinion can and does win. This happens when the vote is split, and the bad choice squeaks in with a minority of the vote - and two-thirds of ALL MPs got in on a minority vote. This is why extremists can get in under FPTP, even if the majority is against them
@cactustactics So stronger government is a negative result? Also, AV is not the hero that would slay all extremists, stopping them from getting elected. To then say FPTP allows extremists to get elected without yielding the fact AV could too makes the point rather redundant, indeed such a sentiment would arise if you did.
@l3igT By 'stronger government' what you really mean is 'a single party with all the power' - and since we're talking about parties winning even when the majority don't want them at all, yes in those situations it's a bad result. It's not democratic or representative
Extremists could get elected under AV, however since they'd need over 50% support to win they wouldn't really be 'extremists' if they did. FPTP can, and does, allow people to win even if the majority are fully against them.
@cactustactics So, just to be clear, extremists aren't extremists if they get more than 50% of the vote. I concede wholeheartedly on that technical point, if over 50% of the electorate vote for a candidate they cannot be called extreme. Lets hope such extremists never get the chance to throw of the yoke of their extremism in such a way.
@l3igT Obviously I agree with you on the extremists thing - but do you see what I'm saying? Extremists absolutely can win under FPTP, even when the majority hates them, simply because you can win with a minority of the vote and no further questions are asked. For them to win under AV would require much greater support, over half of the voters would have to support them, and if that were the case we'd have much deeper problems than just a horrible election result
@cactustactics Lets broaden the argument - a party that has got the most votes (but possibly not from the majority) has more of a mandate to form government than the second, third, fourth (etc) preference candidate. They were chosen from the beginning for their manifesto, not because they were the lesser of two evils. And I hate to disagree with you, but there is a lot to be said (positively) over single party government, whatever party might hold office.
@l3igT Well don't forget the actual government makeup is down to who wins what seats - we don't elect the government under AV, just our MP. Under AV each MP/seat would reflect the preferences of the majority, it would more accurately represent the voters' choice. If the majority don't back party A, then party A should not have absolute power. It's good for them (and their supporters), but not for the majority of people
Out of interest are you happy about what's being done to the NHS right now?
@cactustactics My point is that if the electorate are so undecided so as to not elect a candidate with an overall majority, the candidate with the most votes (even as a minority) does indeed have a mandate to become the MP- they are in fact "the most popular". Hypothetically under AV, if two parties were to tactically vote for each other second-preference wise to definitely keep out another party rather than because it's what they truly believe in, certain views will remain forever unexpressed.
@l3igT Well if Party A people vote for Party B as their 2nd preference to keep out Party C, then they obviously have a preference for B over C right? There's nothing tactical about it- they're expressing their honest opinion, and if it comes down to it they vote for B over C because they actually support B over C
Whereas in FPTP people have to tactically vote for B to keep C out, even if they like A best, and that happens all the time
Back to the extremist example - still the 'most popular?'
@cactustactics On a technicality, under a strict definition of the word "preference", such a claim can indeed be touted. However, if the motivations for having such a "preference" isn't politically motivated (i.e. not to do with policies - more to do with intense dislike of party C), then AV merely allows tactical voting to masquerade as a second preference.
Re: the extremist example, yes, even with the extremists. Indeed it might enrage the electorate enough to engage in politics more!
@l3igT How is 'preference' a technicality? If you prefer A over B but B over C, then you rank them that way. If nobody has a majority and A is eliminated with the fewest votes, and it comes down to whether the majority prefers B or C, if you really dislike C then you obviously prefer B, yes? If you have no opinion at all then you wouldn't rank one over the other. Nothing tactical about it.
So you're saying a candidate with 20% for, 80% vehemently against should be considered 'the most popular?'
@cactustactics I meant the fact that you were using the 'technicality' of a strict definition of one word to defeat a counter-argument. The later point I was trying to explain was that a voting system should be constructed out of allegiances to policies, not particular parties or ideologies. I was merely pointing out that under AV, 'towing the party line' through tactical voting, discriminating against a party for reasons other than policies, can be masqueraded as a '2nd preference'.
@cactustactics Re extremists: if a party has 20% of the vote, the entire 80% of the rest of the electorate's vote split between other parties, then yes, they are the 'most popular'-they received the single largest united vote. The fact that the rest of the vote is split implies major differences of opinion anyway - you cannot say for sure other preferences would definitely lead to a candidate that the 80% are happy with.
@l3igT Would you be happy with an extremist party winning with only 20% of the vote though? I know this sounds like a 'do you want extremists to win' argument, it's really not- I'm asking if you think that would be a completely fair, legitimate and democratic result, or if you'd think 'well wait a minute, 80% really did not want this party to win, we can't just leave it at that'.A split vote is an indication of nuance and a broad range of opinions, and that's where a range of preferences come in
@cactustactics I would have to say, yes, I do. However if such an election victory were to occur in such a way, I believe that it is more than unlikely that the residents of such a constituency would just 'leave it at that'. In such an extraordinary election, a democratic protest from all the opposition would probably follow, possibly ending in democratic removal of the candidate and another election. A politician isn't safe after an election, whatever system they were voted in on.
@l3igT Wait, why would that election be so 'extraordinary'? Why would everyone feel the need to protest, and then 'democratically remove' the legitimate winning candidate (how would this be done exactly?) and force another election to correct the result?If there's such an extreme reaction to a completely legitimate FPTP result, what does that say about its ability to produce a fair and representative winner?
A system that basically requires a revolt to fix its flaws is an incredibly poor system
@cactustactics Well, we were talking about an extremist party - weren't we? Surely the electorate would be outraged if they felt their elected representative did not represent them? And MP's can be removed by their constituency party through a vote of no confidence in much the same as the leader can. What it says about being able to produce a fair and representative winner is that FPTP has its flaws (as does AV) and needs to be changed, just not to AV.
@l3igT I'm sure they would be outraged since the result itself is ridiculous and an affront to democracy, but nevertheless it's a completely legitimate result under FPTP. Results are either objectively fair and acceptable or they're not - you can't look at the winner and say 'oh well hey wait a second, I really don't like this person so this result cannot stand, but if it was someone else it would be fine'
AV isn't perfect but it is nowhere near this flawed, and these were the two options
@cactustactics Of course you can! If you feel strongly enough, then you can take legitimate steps to remove them, and elect someone you feel represents your views! And saying "I really don't like this person so this result cannot stand, but if it was someone else it would be fine" is a perfectly example of AV masquerading tactical votes as 'second preferences' -not true representation regarding policies.- its just that the 'person' who isn't liked is an elected candidate with a minority vote!
@l3igT You're missing the point- preferences under AV are a core part of the election process. If no candidate has majority support, the preferences are used to work out which candidate the majority would back
That's absolutely nothing like holding a FPTP election,having it finish and return a -completely legitimate- winner,and then having to say 'whoa wait a second- this result is so completely unfair that we have to completely overturn the result, force out the winner, and try all over again'
@cactustactics and anything but 1st preferences being included in an election is the point where we part agreement. I personally think only 1st preferences should count, you, the contrary. This has been a most lively debate - I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to disagree and bolster my own opinions and arguments against AV, it is nice to see two people discussing something on YouTube without resorting to swearing or personal insults!
@l3igT Well I don't think (say) 10% of people should decide who represents the entire 100%, just because they had slightly more people in their tiny group.That's not a democratic result,and we need a system that considers these situations and returns a more broadly representative result- not one that has to be overturned when the winning minority happens to be too obviously disliked for people to put up with the outcome,and the unfairness pushes them too far
@cactustactics Of course, that is not to say that tactical voting isn't rife under FPTP, but it brings me back to my earlier point that AV has it's own flaws - and that other systems do a better job of being representative. That is why AV should be voted down (in my own opinion of course).
@cactustactics Also, and on a rather personal note, I would not want to be represented by said 'lesser of two evils'. Representative democracy is about candidacy based on a popular vote. If a candidate is elected on a 30% majority, it would be wrong to assume the other 70% would take absolutely anyone else, indeed using similar arguments to that of AV, the voters second preferences might well be for that party. However, baseless assumptions of either argument (yours or mine) are wrong.
@l3igT "If a candidate is elected on a 30% majority, it would be wrong to assume the other 70% would take absolutely anyone else"
Right, but this can easily happen (the extremist candidate example is just an easy way of showing it can work out that way), and FPTP makes absolutely no attempt to determine if the majority would accept this candidate as a good choice or not - as a system it simply doesn't care, it just returns a 'that'll do' result. AV is entirely based around getting consensus
@cactustactics If any system can be called a "that'll do" system, surely AV is precisely that sort of system! Having more than one vote will surely mean that "that'll do candidates" (the lesser of two evils etc) will be elected. To carry this to it's logical end (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that AV "That'll do" candidacy is better than FPTP "That'll do" candidacy. I do not believe that FPTP is a "that'll do" system, so shall leave that train of thought there.
@l3igT AV will -at worst- elect a candidate that the majority have backed over the other remaining options. If nobody wins majority support outright, then a compromise is sought - likely to be one of the parties with the most 1st preferences, unless they don't have the support of the majority. Majority support for a representative is the whole point!
FPTP will at worst return the absolute worst candidate, like I showed you. How much more "that'll do" can you get?? The choice of 20% is no winner
@cactustactics Also, there are counter-measures to keep in check the elected members of our society. If the majority are so disgusted by a particular elected member, they can democratically move to get rid of them, not only limited to ousting them at the end of their elected term, but before, if such a motivated grievance is held by the majority.
@l3igT Not true - since a candidate can win with a minority of the vote, even a majority grievance can't guarantee they'll oust that MP. Sometimes a candidate's guaranteed base support is all they need. This is what I'm saying - FPTP can allow a deeply unpopular candidate to win (seriously, look up 'Condorcet loser'). FPTP is absolutely no protection against this. AV on the other hand REQUIRES majority support, and if the majority are against that candidate then they will not win.
@cactustactics Your direction to 'Condorcet loser' was followed at first mention, so there is no further need to direct me there. Whilst I obviously concede that such a occurrence can indeed happen under FPTP and not under AV, it does not automatically make AV ultimately better. I believe I have stated the following opinion before, I apologise if I have failed to: I am all for changing the FPTP system, it is indeed unfair, but AV is not the system to achieve such an aim.
@l3igT Hard to keep up with who's said what... but my point with the Condorcet loser thing is that FPTP can produce the actual worst possible result, especially if people vote honestly instead of tactically for one of the big parties against their real preferences. It's just not a democratic system at all. What do you find unfair about it, specifically?
Honestly this is such a low bar that AV can't help being better- FPTP really is that bad. It's a more representative system and a step forward
@cactustactics Well, to be fair, you personally find it to be the worst possible result. I personally would find being represented by someone I didn't vote for and who appeared to be everyone else's "backup vote" worse. I truly believe that if you are politically motivated enough you can get rid of unpopular candidates (even when elected). In my opinion, strong governments are favorable to hung parliaments and coalition governments, which is why I believe AV to be the wrong choice.
@l3igT And no, the Condorcet loser is -by definition- the worst possible result. It's the candidate who is preferable to no-one, who the majority would reject in favour of every other possible candidate. This isn't just my opinion, that's the definition. A voting system shouldn't return this person as the winner
Hung parliaments only happen if the majority don't support one particular party - the system shouldn't be skewed towards giving them full power anyway against the public vote
@cactustactics Are there any examples of a Condorcet loser? An empirically supported example? Or is this a hypothetical thought experiment? I realise the tone of this reply is condescending, but I am actually genuinely interested in the answer.
@l3igT It's difficult to identify a Condorcet loser under FPTP since you need to know people's preferences (to be able to identify when a Condorcet loser exists) and they're obviously not polled under a FPTP election. The 2006 Nicaraguan election is an example though, where the (majority) right-wing vote was split between two candidates allowing the left-wing Daniel Ortega to win with a minority.
The extremist example is just a clear way of demonstrating it's entirely possible for it to happen
@cactustactics what is the realistic likelihood of such an event occurring? Sure AV guards against this, but is this a serious threat to our politics? If the candidate can be removed even after they have been elected, do we have to change the entire system to safeguard against a Condorcet loser? I realise you are expounding this point to detail the positives of AV, but, being in the opposition, I would question whether it is a real threat?
@l3igT I'm not even bringing Condorcet losers up as a positive of AV - it's an absolute negative of FPTP. It's a core part of what makes it such a poor, half-arsed system for electing a representative
Look at tactical voting - say Lib voters vote Lab to keep the Cons out, and Lab wins. This is a common occurrence (and a necessity under FPTP for exactly this reason). If that vote was split, with Lib supporters voting for their real choice, the Cons would win, despite being the least popular
@cactustactics We have already discussed tactical voting haven't we? I am merely stating that the winning party would have indeed won the 'popular vote', by gaining the support of the largest single vote. I am contesting the point that having a second, third, fourth etc preference as a winning candidate is worse than a candidate who wins with first preferences (even if it is with a minority)
@l3igT Not if that person would lose in a 2-horse FPTP race with 2 or more of the other candidates, that's the whole problem of FPTP that AV'd have eliminated.
People have overlapping policies, causing vote-splitting. That's why FPTP can't tell you the 2-horse winner when there are 3 or more candidates. AV does in every case.
AV=majority rule.
FPTP isn't.
It's as simple as that.
Fraud was committed against our nation by enemies of it.
This hung parliament arguement from the tories and the Labour donkeys wearing red rossettes is a deliberate attempt to confuse AV with proportional representation. AV will not produce more hung parliaments. Is this coalition any worse than a Conservative government on its own?
I think I'll be voting no, but not because of this video! The passage he reads from the AV rules makes perfect sense to me and AV is trivial to understand. I also think that it's irrelivant which system keeps the BNP out, they both do that successfully.
The problem for me is that AV results in more hung Parliaments which is fine unless it becomes really common and parties just assume they'll have to compromise when they write their manifestoes.
@MatJaggard Preferential Voting does not result in more hung parliaments, just look at Australia, we've used the system federally since 1919 and we've only had 2 hung parliaments since its inception
Why is he quoting an extract of a convoluted description of AV to challenge it's merit with the hope that it scares off people who don't understand it - it's not that complex, people aren't stupid
Its a video about 'vested interests' people who want to protect their position, their privileges and don't want change to happen EVEN if its in the country's best interest. Rather than the interest of the political establishment.
Vote for change! Vote Yes to AV. Cameron is a Hypocrite and a liar.
I find it hilarious that Cameron's main reason for voting against AV is because it would favour parties like the BNP. AV would result in small parties having less chance of getting seats (not just BNP or Monster Raving Loony Party, but also Socialist parties and the Greens), hence the reason that the BNP are completely anti-AV.
@RichardElden Nobody wants to listen to your opinion on anything. You have already voiced your support for Adolf Hitler. Why the fuck would we want to listen to your lame half assed views on reform? You said you support a right wing military dictatorship, not democracy. Such a lame troll,
With Camerons powers to manipulate public opinion using lies and fear, no wonder David Cameron is in favour of more referendums. He does know how AV works but he's bending the truth to protect the status quo. Along with his new Labour friends. The donkeys wearing red rosettes like John prescott and Margaret Becket who feel threatened by the though of having to campaign for votes. Most of them would scare the children.
idiots. AV is simple. My 9 year old niece understands it. It's basically just an elimination. There is more voting to be done but that means it's a much fairer system.
But even so. Most of the parties are pretty much the same anyway (The ones that will win).
It seems that David Cameron doesn't understand how AV actually works. Votes for less popular parties will be counted less, not more, because they'll be knocked out earlier. The comparison to 100m sprinting is completely illegitimate.
Whether or AV is better or not, these arguments are not good ones.
@SalamandraTheNinja Errrr I think you missed the point? he is saying that those people who vote for majority parties will get more votes. That is a fact. AV is a stupid solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
I do think FTPT needs to be changed, I just don't think AV is the way to go about it. The reason we're having the referendum is because we have a hung parliament - the first one in a verrry long time. AV is just going to create this problem much more frequently. I'm voting no to AV, and I don't do politic so I don't know other options but I'm sure there is much fairer and simpler method than both FPTP and AV.
When he says it's worked for 100s of years, he should have said "it's worked for two parties for the last few hundred years".
He also is treating the electorate like idiots.
Hung parliaments sometimes happen when you have more than 2 parties in a system, get over it.
I'd like to add I feel PR is better than AV but the Conservatives wouldn't allow a referendum on that because they know that PR is clearly a fairer system so it would be accepted and they'd lose seats.
@NattyMcCool777 PR is more unfair. on the surface it seems better, but It ignores marginal demographics, most notable those in the country side, elections would become a clamour to appease the cities.
Look at the map of Britain at the last election, it was majority blue, but because the majority of people live in cities it becomes grossly unfair.
AV is pointless, if you back a horse and lose, suck it up and move on. Dont cry and try and rig the race.
and i do fear that a lower voting turnout would happend if we went to PR, because then people would feel their vote wouldnt count for as much. if u get me
A combination of PR and AV could work (it does in Scotland and Wales for their local councils). It would help maintain a representative from a specific area to the House of Commons and would also make the seats divided more proportionally (not totally).
I don't think with PR that people woud feel their vote counts for less because most people when they're voting for their MP are actually more bothered about which party's going to be in power.
A combination of PR and AV could work (it does in Scotland and Wales for their local councils). It would help maintain a representative from a specific area to the House of Commons and would also make the seats divided more proportionally (not totally).
I don't think with PR that people woud feel their vote counts for less because most people when they're voting for their MP are actually more bothered about which party's going to be in power.
He could of just come on and said "I am one of the dumbest motherfuckers in the world" the fact that this guy got in is a fucking joke. I mean how dumb do you have to be to vote conservative. It's just mind numbing thinking that because people aren't intelligent enough scum like this cunt gets in. I could out reason this cunt and I'm 15 for fucks sake. What happened to leader with balls. I know they weren't connected enough to get into politics.
@RichardElden It is a waste of time and more expensive....i think one person = 1 vote!!! It really is a waste of time and money and more confusing too! Plus the only party that will benefit from this are the Liberals hence why they are in favour....also how can the person that comes 3rd become prime minister? That is unfair and undemocratic....i agree with you!! The AV is a stupid waste of time!!! even senior Labour members are against it!
@rritz1 I wish I could talk to every single person like you. You are clearly a sensible person who wants to vote yes but is concerned that the bullshit from the Tory no campaign might be true.
I can assure you it will NOT cost 250 million! The change would cost the same as a general election, NOT 250 million. Spread the word that the No campaign is LYING. It will NOT lead to coalitions, it will NOT cost 250 million, and it WILL hurt Cameron.
NO2AV. Av will give second rate partys. Say libdem, labour and tory voters all put say the greenparty as there second choice, they would win, even if they only had say 15% of the votes at the start.... how is that fair? who ever has the most votes should win. how is it fair that greenparty get in with only 15% of first prefernece votes when one of the "big 3" had say 48% of first round votes...it isnt.
@annomymusic That's not the way it works. Even if you put green party as your second choice, they would not have enough votes to take over your first ones, as they would have already been counted. Basic maths. You say whoever has the most votes should win, but what if (e.g.) the tories get 30%, labour get 25%, libdem 23%, green 12% and BNP 10%? Are you saying that because the tories got 5% more votes than labour they should go against 70% of who the population wants in? That's FPTP for ya.
@annomymusic because 52% didnt wanted one of your big parties and sometime people dont vote on what they want but like here in canada we have 2 liberal parties , the NDP and the liberals and some people dont care which one to vote for as long as they win because they dont want our tories to get in.
This is a campaign of misinformation. Cameron keeps saying that the person in 3rd can end up winning yet he was never really in 3rd and the candidate in 1st was never in 1st because the majority didn't vote for the candidate originally in 1st. AV gives the power back to the majority.
But what is fair about an MP coming 3rd is entitled to be PM!? I think AV is more confusing, it is expensive and the results could turn out as disproportional when compared to PR systems or FPTP. Also it requires a great level of numeracy and literacy to be used efficiently. Plus if very few people go out to vote then whats the point anyway? the current system is far more easier and straight forward...just put a cross by a box!! AV can lead to hung parliaments too!
@Supersmooth007 more confusing? If your brain can't manage to place four or five candidates in order of preference then you deserve the Tory/Labour Party to govern over you forever.
@Supersmooth007 The only main party that will benefit from this voting system are the Lib Dems...hence perhaps because they always come 3rd!?? I mean, now you know why only 3 countries use it worldwide! Please see my video on Alternative vote....!! Also David Cameron is not saying a No to AV because he is scared of losing power or seats...what about the senior Labour MP's that have said NO to AV!??
@Supersmooth007 It's a two-party system where Labour and the Conservatives are guaranteed to be in power half the time and pick up extra support through tactical voting... and you're surprised they're both against reforming that system and making it harder for themselves? Really?
av sounds fair to me, more chance of the winner actually being someone i chose rather than someone winning that i didn't want to win at all, and thats all that matters
This has been flagged as spam show
David Cameron's final thoughts...We need money for to pay for the Olympics...I must rape the poor and the sick as we need to put on a good fireworks display for the world and for fucks sake i must make sure that the rich are safe by not touching there child benefit.
MarlonToWin 1 month ago
Fuck you ya dumb tory Etonian toff
haz464 1 month ago
The stupid thing is that AV is basically the same as FPTP, apart from in order for an MP to be elected they need 50% of their constituents support. If none of the candidates do then it goes to the second votes and so on. Does that sounds complicated? Would you really want an MP to represent that may have the most votes, but not more than half? AV is a slightly fairer system and I don’t know about you but I can’t vote for David Cameron because I can’t vote for a politician that lies to my face.
james665rich1 2 months ago
Sadly the only reason why the AV vote was rejected was because it was a pile of trash, the brainless dished out what could only be described as soapy water and they knew the electorate would probably throw it out. The electorate have more sense!
AV was never PR, which was the original vote was supposed to have been about. They knew this, yet when AV was thrown out, our ever so dimwitted representatives, said that it was a clear rejection of PR.
You lying twisted scumbags.
Sliepnir2006 4 months ago
Comment removed
Sliepnir2006 4 months ago
I do not know why our politicians seem to think of the electorate as being some sort of disease, I guess it must be something, that once elected these numb nuts, get into their heads. Maybe it is just down to some cringing power craze?
But there is another weird characteristic, as soon as they are elected, politicians dish the dirt right back onto the electorate. Worse, like some abusive relationship, at the next election, the electorate will simply vote these cuckoos back in ??~
Sliepnir2006 4 months ago
AV is clearly better than FPTP. 70% of the uk are idiots.
CrusstyJugglers 4 months ago
its called instant runoff, meaning its like having a runoff vote, but you only have to go to the polling booth once
once you can grasp that, its incredibly simple
bigswano 4 months ago
@bigswano its also simple enough, that results in Aus are broadcast immediately after counting has started, and they can do that pendulum swinging thing
bigswano 4 months ago
@bigswano the results are not released quite that quickly because counting actually starts once the doors are locked in the polling booth it actually takes about 90 minutes in most seats for the results to really start coming in unlike the US where they do exit polling but then again of course they vote on a Thursday (a stupid idea) and the booths close at 10pm instead of 6pm like here.
irishgodfatherchris 4 months ago
Complicated? Dictatorships are even less complicated than Democracy
MacabreManifesto 6 months ago
A referendum is the ultimate way of finding out what the public want – we can hardly reject the results just because we don't like them.
Grow up – if people don't turn out to vote, they're giving up their vote.
WKerryUK 7 months ago 4
@WKerryUK Word.
The1985Channel 2 months ago
Glad Av was overwhelmingly rejected. Twas such a silly idea.
ProtestantsRUs 7 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs when less than half of the UK voted, It was hardly worth it.
irishgodfatherchris 7 months ago
to say 70 % of the nation is with david cameron is an outright lie, 70% of the turn out were with him, 70% of the nation was not against AV, and this is one of the only two national referendum's, and both sides the liberals and the conservatives did a damn good job of fucking it up. neither side played the game honestly and both parties showed a distinct lack of principle. And this is why you don't get a higher turn out for a god damn national electio - let alone av.
manakin94 7 months ago
Horrible beaky faced lying piece of shit.
sail1948 9 months ago
Democracy = 1 person 1 vote
Very simple but the Marxist hate it cause it actually makes sense.
CelticAngloPress 9 months ago
@CelticAngloPress no democracy means rule by the people thats its literal meaning, Preferential voting is still one person one vote you merely preference other candidates you use the same ballot paper, and by the way useless bit of trivia Preferential voting was introduces federally here by the conservative United Australia Party (now the Liberal Party) to avoid tactical voting and vote splitting with the Country Party (now the National Party).
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@CelticAngloPress AV is one person one vote.
nemo2e4 9 months ago
and btw who ever said to me most people didnt wantbalire but eh still won, he was actually elected ina landslide victory unlike the tories, and he was also, by poll, the msot popular pm since winston churchil, now i think he's a lying bastard but before hand i think its safe to say the british public wanted him in.
manakin94 9 months ago
lets be honest cameron has no backbone, he stood against av so that the fricken out of date backbenchers would castratehim and his testicles into earings for their stuck up wives. What i love most is that Cameron's education, lifestyle ect. put him so far away from the british public i wonder if he's really the man, along with neck clegg, to actually run a country which is not educated by oxford and eton, perhaps britain needs produce a non-elitist politican who understands the national intrest.
manakin94 9 months ago
Dear David Cameron, before you gloat about "winning", understand that someone who would lie the British people to gather their participation in something for your own self-interest is an enemy of this nation.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
Wrong 69.9% of the country is with you! They dont get it:)
Dalek1230 9 months ago
"Quite clearly the A V system was rejected by the british electorate. "If it is so good & fair, Why is it not used by more countries? Thank goodness we did not get suckered in to a worthless voting system that we do not need".
TheDelightfulmiles 9 months ago
@TheDelightfulmiles you know why, its because most countries have Proportional Representation, here in Australia we have Preferential voting and Instant Gregory Proportional Representation, how can you say FPTP is a better system when you can win in a landslide with less than 35% of the vote, here in Australia you'd lose in a landslide with that much of the vote, you'd end up with about 40 seats in the lower house which would mean the government would have 110 seats and 65% of the vote
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@TheDelightfulmiles AV=majority rule. FPTP isn't. Follow your leader to oblivion. He is an enemy of this nation. Anybody who would willingly lie to the British public purely for short term self-interest is.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love his Usain Bolt example... yes David, that is an appropriate metaphor for the Alternative Voting system... well done, through your lies, you managed to fool enough of the British public into voting no... but also, well British public, we had a chance, and we blew it...
robinuk75 9 months ago
I love his Usain Bolt example... yes David, that is an appropriate metaphor for the Alternative Voting system... well done, through your lies, you managed to fool enough of the British public into voting no... but also, well British public, we had a chance, and we blew it...
robinuk75 9 months ago
hey davey... before this referendum I didnt really have much opinion on you. Now I know how much of a cunt you are
guess this means that since we're using FPTP I'm gonna have to tactically vote against you
velocityeleven 9 months ago
Dear David Cameron, before you gloat about "winning", understand that financial fraudsters go to jail. Political fraudsters cause worse consequences, and to an entire nation, so their penalty must be worse.
Understand this.
A fraud is nothing to be proud about. Remember this too.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
Comment removed
NavsPoliticalVideos 9 months ago
What Cameron conveniently omits to mention here is that he himself was elected leader of the Conservative Party by AV. If AV is good enough for members of the Conservative Party in choosing their leaders, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us in choosing our MPs? What utter, shameless hypocrisy from the Tories. It is a truly depressing moment in British politics that 70 percent of the electorate were taken in by this guile
Jazutti 9 months ago
It's a shame most of Britain were too retarded/apathetic to learn about AV. Or they were just gullible and trusted David Cameron and Darren Gough's opinion on what it means.
NICKvavavoomCAREY 9 months ago 3
cunt
fpscockyboi 9 months ago
3:00 Wouldn't accept it in any other walk of life? You accepted it for your own fucking election as leader of the Conservatives, you twat.
alibasheer 9 months ago
@alibasheer so wait, davey here is honestly telling me that if people go to a store looking for a pizza, and then they dont find one, they should just let themselves starve for the night?
velocityeleven 9 months ago
Hey Cameron, You're a prick :) I hate your tory gutrs
xXxJobixXx 9 months ago 2
As an alternate explanation, Dave could just have said: "I'm voting 'No' to AV because I'm a fucking money-loving Conservative who obviously doesn't give six shits about any member of the English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish public, and as long as I'm making a profit, I don't give a toss!". lol'ing at "'No' to a system which is unfair", LOLWUT!
SnappyPenguins 9 months ago
so can someone explain how this system creates hung parliaments? of course not! they don't. What causes hung parliaments is the three (or more) party system which makes it much less likely to get a majority of 50% compared with the 2 party system such as the US, where you either (generaly) vote democrat or republican. AV has nothing to do with Hung parliaments, so stop making up nonsense to secure your unelected grip on power!
andymacfarlane1994 9 months ago
Way to go, the no propaganda campaign has won, democracy is still dead in the UK.
We will never see such an important vote in our lifetimes, if you voted no you deserve to be sterilized.
kensei85 9 months ago 15
@kensei85 to me it just proves that most of us dont deserve the right to vote in the first place
velocityeleven 9 months ago
@velocityeleven yeah, if only we had a system where you need a minimum IQ of 100 to vote, then AV would have passed with a landslide.
kensei85 9 months ago 7
@kensei85 So true. Thanks to the saps who rejected AV, we will be forced to support blue and red ping-pong matches for at least until we can get rid of this Tory Public Rep sell-out of a PM.
Grawpify 3 weeks ago
@kensei85 regardless of any party preference, don't you understand what Cameron is saying? Perhaps if you listened to what he's saying then maybe you'll see that First Past the Post is easier and the better systems even despite it's flaws.
georgemullens 2 weeks ago
@georgemullens I do (and FYI I do not support any political party), do you understand that FPTP only works fairly for a 2 party system, in a multi-party system like we have today, the votes are split and more people vote against the winning MPs than for them? This fact means the MAJORITY of votes are being thrown away! AV was far from perfect, but at least it would have been a step in the right direction from the primitive system we are stuck with (for a long time to come).
kensei85 2 weeks ago
I just want to say to all you guardian reading AV loving lefties, IN YOUR FACE.
35% of the vote counted so far and the overwhelming majority of the electorate has seen AV for the crock it is.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
cookdave 9 months ago
Because he doesn't want to work harder for his position.
StephenyohTVbase 9 months ago
the only reason he fucking likes it is because the posh twat can get away with forming goverment on a 36% majority. now last time i checked that means 74% of britain didnt want him as prime minister. THE NATIONAL INTREST WAS NOT HIM.
manakin94 9 months ago 18
@manakin94 36% majority means that 64% didn't vote for him, not 74%.
The1985Channel 9 months ago
@The1985Channel i realize that btw :L suprisingly i can count jsut angry typing :L cheers for correcting that though (:
manakin94 9 months ago
@The1985Channel i realize that btw :L suprisingly i can count just angry typing :L cheers for correcting that though (:
manakin94 9 months ago
@manakin94 shut up you pov twat
choween 9 months ago
@manakin94 64%. But yes, almost 2/3 of the electorate were against David Cameron in power.
CCmachine 9 months ago
@manakin94 So why 70% were against AV!??? Ed Milliband was against AV and then for it...he follows his party like John Major!
Supersmooth007 8 months ago
@Supersmooth007 because they had a vested interest in keeping FPTP, they genuinely thought that a system that if you get 55% of the vote you get approximately the same percentage of seats in the house was inferior to a system where 40% of the vote would get you 70% of the seats in the house
irishgodfatherchris 7 months ago
May I point out when he says the voters of the BNP would get their votes counted more often than major party supporters he is missing (most likely intentionally) the point that in effect there are multiple rounds to the voting, whereby EACH time the (for example) conservative voter's vote gets counted for the Conservatives. He is glossing over the fact that that person's vote is counted the same every time, to stress the semi-truth that a minority party voter gets multiple distinct votes.
foxtrapper121 9 months ago
'I need you to go out there and vote no to AV'.. so that I can be elected again. The selfish motives of politicians makes me sick. Stop spreading trash round our streets saying you'll give intensive care babies a maternity unit if we vote no. Gotta love Cameron's acting skills though - staring at his piece of paper when describing AV so as to show how 'confusing' it is. Although tbh i wouldn't be surprised if he was that incompetent.
Supertessybear 9 months ago 2
proportional representative system might have been better, although first past the post ensures that every vote counts and is fair. The policies of each party are so vast that who would want to have a second vote for a Tory if you voted labour first. AV best suites the Minos I.e. Liberals! AV will loose in any case, as the electorate is not convinced it is fair!
halkyn14 9 months ago
My 6 years old cousin knows how the AV system works, its not complicated stop lieing Cameron.
Theaverable 9 months ago
It is not just the Tories in favour of AV.....Liberals are because they normally come 3rd.....Even senior Labour Ministers are against AV.....David Blunkett is against it too, like John Ried!!! One person one vote simple & easy just a cross in a box and done"!!! make sure you vote though because your vote counts.
Supersmooth007 9 months ago
AV is expensive, more confusing and if very few people turn up to vote then surely it would be a waste of money..AV requires a good degree of accuracy and numeracy and results that are distributed can turn out to be disproportional, when compared to PR systems or FPTP, why do you think only 3 countries in world use AV system!? Whats democratic or fair about the person finishing 3rd becoming PM!? look at my video, I explain the advantages & disadvantages, feel free to check it out on my channel.
Supersmooth007 9 months ago
@Supersmooth007 You don't understand the system you idiot.
DanceLikeANitwit 9 months ago
@Supersmooth007 You literally just made the argument that people are too stupid to write the number 1 in a box, therefore AV is too complex for the British public to understand. Would it blow your mind if I told you there's reading involved on the ballot paper too?
I know the No campaign's talking points are based around treating people like children, but it's nice to see someone come out and literally say it
cactustactics 9 months ago
What is this argument about having votes counted twice? If the conservative party is popular enough with over 50% of the voters, it shouldn't MATTER if they're supporters' second preferences aren't taken into account, because they won't need to be. This argument demonstrates a fear on Cameron's part that his party isn't strong enough, not based on just 1st preferences, but 2nd 3rd 4th etc preferences too, to win at an election under AV. This is a massive inditement against HIS PARTY, not AV....
BoJanglezzzzzz 9 months ago
Everyone is missing the bigger picture.once the voting system is changed, it can lead to further referendums for change to House of Lords, Constitutional Monarchy, change of Human rights law to a constitution. Al the no vote is doing is protecting a the Mother of all parliamentary systems! And still I think 1 man 1 vote is correct!
halkyn14 9 months ago
@halkyn14 HAte to point out the obvious here, but that's kinda how democracy works. Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state , typically through elected representatives. If (but only if, and we can't really know this unless we have further referendums, as polls are usually a load of unrepresentative shite which only ask about 1,000 people vs a population of 60 million...) the population wants these further reforms, they should be granted.
BoJanglezzzzzz 9 months ago
@cactustactics
Is AV is more simple than FPTP? I think it is safe to say it isn't. Irregardless of whether you feel the electorate will be able to handle the changes. (I personally think any added complexity will just increase voter apathy). What about a voter that just votes for one candidate (feeling that they alone best represent their views), then, as their candidate gets booted out, ceases to have a vote whilst others around them continue to vote. Doesn't that strike you as unfair?
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Ok, here's a more simple system than FPTP - whoever I personally like best is the winner. Incredibly simple, therefore better - right?
The problem is FPTP is so simplistic (which is a more accurate word) that it produces really bad results. The absolute least popular candidate, the one the majority would take absolutely anyone else over, can win under FPTP. This is not a good thing! AV takes the time to find a majority consensus - less 'simple' but a better result
Actually voting's easy
cactustactics 9 months ago
@l3igT and everyone puts the candidate they think best represents their views as their 1st preference. If they don't rank anyone else, they're literally saying 'if my first choice is out then I absolutely do not want my vote to count for anyone else' - they're saying that if it's just the other candidates left, and the voters are effectively asked 'who do you prefer', that person would abstain from voting. That's their choice- most people would rank other candidates though, stating their opinion
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics I disagree, the voter who only votes for one candidate isn't 'abstaining' from the following rounds, they are cut out completely from the following decisions, just because they don't like any other candidates or may not want to vote for 'the lesser of two evils'. I would hasten to add that FPTP does actually produce positive results most of the time, such as strong government (current government excluded on the basis that it is an exception to the rule in a historical sense)
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT No it's actually exactly what they're doing - if they had a preference for anyone in that round they'd have ranked them as a preference, right? That's exactly what preferences are - you put your first choice and then rank the others in order of support, until you run out of people you'd actually bother to back. At each stage the voters are being asked 'who do you prefer out of the remaining candidates?' by looking at their preferences - if they don't prefer any of them, they're not voting
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics The argument follows that it is unfair that some voters (with more preferences) have more 'bites of the apple' vote-wise than those with one conviction. That appears to be essentially unfair. Just because the voters of one candidate 'have the option' of stating more than one preference and don't, it is unfair that they have a candidate forced upon them by other people's further preferences.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT And FPTP really doesn't produce positive results most of the time - literally the worst candidate can win. That's not hyperbole - literally the absolute bottom choice (Condorcet loser, wikipedia it), worst result in the majority opinion can and does win. This happens when the vote is split, and the bad choice squeaks in with a minority of the vote - and two-thirds of ALL MPs got in on a minority vote. This is why extremists can get in under FPTP, even if the majority is against them
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics So stronger government is a negative result? Also, AV is not the hero that would slay all extremists, stopping them from getting elected. To then say FPTP allows extremists to get elected without yielding the fact AV could too makes the point rather redundant, indeed such a sentiment would arise if you did.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT By 'stronger government' what you really mean is 'a single party with all the power' - and since we're talking about parties winning even when the majority don't want them at all, yes in those situations it's a bad result. It's not democratic or representative
Extremists could get elected under AV, however since they'd need over 50% support to win they wouldn't really be 'extremists' if they did. FPTP can, and does, allow people to win even if the majority are fully against them.
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics So, just to be clear, extremists aren't extremists if they get more than 50% of the vote. I concede wholeheartedly on that technical point, if over 50% of the electorate vote for a candidate they cannot be called extreme. Lets hope such extremists never get the chance to throw of the yoke of their extremism in such a way.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Obviously I agree with you on the extremists thing - but do you see what I'm saying? Extremists absolutely can win under FPTP, even when the majority hates them, simply because you can win with a minority of the vote and no further questions are asked. For them to win under AV would require much greater support, over half of the voters would have to support them, and if that were the case we'd have much deeper problems than just a horrible election result
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Lets broaden the argument - a party that has got the most votes (but possibly not from the majority) has more of a mandate to form government than the second, third, fourth (etc) preference candidate. They were chosen from the beginning for their manifesto, not because they were the lesser of two evils. And I hate to disagree with you, but there is a lot to be said (positively) over single party government, whatever party might hold office.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Well don't forget the actual government makeup is down to who wins what seats - we don't elect the government under AV, just our MP. Under AV each MP/seat would reflect the preferences of the majority, it would more accurately represent the voters' choice. If the majority don't back party A, then party A should not have absolute power. It's good for them (and their supporters), but not for the majority of people
Out of interest are you happy about what's being done to the NHS right now?
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics My point is that if the electorate are so undecided so as to not elect a candidate with an overall majority, the candidate with the most votes (even as a minority) does indeed have a mandate to become the MP- they are in fact "the most popular". Hypothetically under AV, if two parties were to tactically vote for each other second-preference wise to definitely keep out another party rather than because it's what they truly believe in, certain views will remain forever unexpressed.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Well if Party A people vote for Party B as their 2nd preference to keep out Party C, then they obviously have a preference for B over C right? There's nothing tactical about it- they're expressing their honest opinion, and if it comes down to it they vote for B over C because they actually support B over C
Whereas in FPTP people have to tactically vote for B to keep C out, even if they like A best, and that happens all the time
Back to the extremist example - still the 'most popular?'
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics On a technicality, under a strict definition of the word "preference", such a claim can indeed be touted. However, if the motivations for having such a "preference" isn't politically motivated (i.e. not to do with policies - more to do with intense dislike of party C), then AV merely allows tactical voting to masquerade as a second preference.
Re: the extremist example, yes, even with the extremists. Indeed it might enrage the electorate enough to engage in politics more!
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT How is 'preference' a technicality? If you prefer A over B but B over C, then you rank them that way. If nobody has a majority and A is eliminated with the fewest votes, and it comes down to whether the majority prefers B or C, if you really dislike C then you obviously prefer B, yes? If you have no opinion at all then you wouldn't rank one over the other. Nothing tactical about it.
So you're saying a candidate with 20% for, 80% vehemently against should be considered 'the most popular?'
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics I meant the fact that you were using the 'technicality' of a strict definition of one word to defeat a counter-argument. The later point I was trying to explain was that a voting system should be constructed out of allegiances to policies, not particular parties or ideologies. I was merely pointing out that under AV, 'towing the party line' through tactical voting, discriminating against a party for reasons other than policies, can be masqueraded as a '2nd preference'.
l3igT 9 months ago
@cactustactics Re extremists: if a party has 20% of the vote, the entire 80% of the rest of the electorate's vote split between other parties, then yes, they are the 'most popular'-they received the single largest united vote. The fact that the rest of the vote is split implies major differences of opinion anyway - you cannot say for sure other preferences would definitely lead to a candidate that the 80% are happy with.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Would you be happy with an extremist party winning with only 20% of the vote though? I know this sounds like a 'do you want extremists to win' argument, it's really not- I'm asking if you think that would be a completely fair, legitimate and democratic result, or if you'd think 'well wait a minute, 80% really did not want this party to win, we can't just leave it at that'.A split vote is an indication of nuance and a broad range of opinions, and that's where a range of preferences come in
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics I would have to say, yes, I do. However if such an election victory were to occur in such a way, I believe that it is more than unlikely that the residents of such a constituency would just 'leave it at that'. In such an extraordinary election, a democratic protest from all the opposition would probably follow, possibly ending in democratic removal of the candidate and another election. A politician isn't safe after an election, whatever system they were voted in on.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Wait, why would that election be so 'extraordinary'? Why would everyone feel the need to protest, and then 'democratically remove' the legitimate winning candidate (how would this be done exactly?) and force another election to correct the result?If there's such an extreme reaction to a completely legitimate FPTP result, what does that say about its ability to produce a fair and representative winner?
A system that basically requires a revolt to fix its flaws is an incredibly poor system
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Well, we were talking about an extremist party - weren't we? Surely the electorate would be outraged if they felt their elected representative did not represent them? And MP's can be removed by their constituency party through a vote of no confidence in much the same as the leader can. What it says about being able to produce a fair and representative winner is that FPTP has its flaws (as does AV) and needs to be changed, just not to AV.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT I'm sure they would be outraged since the result itself is ridiculous and an affront to democracy, but nevertheless it's a completely legitimate result under FPTP. Results are either objectively fair and acceptable or they're not - you can't look at the winner and say 'oh well hey wait a second, I really don't like this person so this result cannot stand, but if it was someone else it would be fine'
AV isn't perfect but it is nowhere near this flawed, and these were the two options
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Of course you can! If you feel strongly enough, then you can take legitimate steps to remove them, and elect someone you feel represents your views! And saying "I really don't like this person so this result cannot stand, but if it was someone else it would be fine" is a perfectly example of AV masquerading tactical votes as 'second preferences' -not true representation regarding policies.- its just that the 'person' who isn't liked is an elected candidate with a minority vote!
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT You're missing the point- preferences under AV are a core part of the election process. If no candidate has majority support, the preferences are used to work out which candidate the majority would back
That's absolutely nothing like holding a FPTP election,having it finish and return a -completely legitimate- winner,and then having to say 'whoa wait a second- this result is so completely unfair that we have to completely overturn the result, force out the winner, and try all over again'
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics and anything but 1st preferences being included in an election is the point where we part agreement. I personally think only 1st preferences should count, you, the contrary. This has been a most lively debate - I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to disagree and bolster my own opinions and arguments against AV, it is nice to see two people discussing something on YouTube without resorting to swearing or personal insults!
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Well I don't think (say) 10% of people should decide who represents the entire 100%, just because they had slightly more people in their tiny group.That's not a democratic result,and we need a system that considers these situations and returns a more broadly representative result- not one that has to be overturned when the winning minority happens to be too obviously disliked for people to put up with the outcome,and the unfairness pushes them too far
But academic at this point - cheers!
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics unlucky bitchtits, better luck next time.
cookdave 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
@cactustactics Of course, that is not to say that tactical voting isn't rife under FPTP, but it brings me back to my earlier point that AV has it's own flaws - and that other systems do a better job of being representative. That is why AV should be voted down (in my own opinion of course).
l3igT 9 months ago
@cactustactics Also, and on a rather personal note, I would not want to be represented by said 'lesser of two evils'. Representative democracy is about candidacy based on a popular vote. If a candidate is elected on a 30% majority, it would be wrong to assume the other 70% would take absolutely anyone else, indeed using similar arguments to that of AV, the voters second preferences might well be for that party. However, baseless assumptions of either argument (yours or mine) are wrong.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT "If a candidate is elected on a 30% majority, it would be wrong to assume the other 70% would take absolutely anyone else"
Right, but this can easily happen (the extremist candidate example is just an easy way of showing it can work out that way), and FPTP makes absolutely no attempt to determine if the majority would accept this candidate as a good choice or not - as a system it simply doesn't care, it just returns a 'that'll do' result. AV is entirely based around getting consensus
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics If any system can be called a "that'll do" system, surely AV is precisely that sort of system! Having more than one vote will surely mean that "that'll do candidates" (the lesser of two evils etc) will be elected. To carry this to it's logical end (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that AV "That'll do" candidacy is better than FPTP "That'll do" candidacy. I do not believe that FPTP is a "that'll do" system, so shall leave that train of thought there.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT AV will -at worst- elect a candidate that the majority have backed over the other remaining options. If nobody wins majority support outright, then a compromise is sought - likely to be one of the parties with the most 1st preferences, unless they don't have the support of the majority. Majority support for a representative is the whole point!
FPTP will at worst return the absolute worst candidate, like I showed you. How much more "that'll do" can you get?? The choice of 20% is no winner
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Also, there are counter-measures to keep in check the elected members of our society. If the majority are so disgusted by a particular elected member, they can democratically move to get rid of them, not only limited to ousting them at the end of their elected term, but before, if such a motivated grievance is held by the majority.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Not true - since a candidate can win with a minority of the vote, even a majority grievance can't guarantee they'll oust that MP. Sometimes a candidate's guaranteed base support is all they need. This is what I'm saying - FPTP can allow a deeply unpopular candidate to win (seriously, look up 'Condorcet loser'). FPTP is absolutely no protection against this. AV on the other hand REQUIRES majority support, and if the majority are against that candidate then they will not win.
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Your direction to 'Condorcet loser' was followed at first mention, so there is no further need to direct me there. Whilst I obviously concede that such a occurrence can indeed happen under FPTP and not under AV, it does not automatically make AV ultimately better. I believe I have stated the following opinion before, I apologise if I have failed to: I am all for changing the FPTP system, it is indeed unfair, but AV is not the system to achieve such an aim.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT Hard to keep up with who's said what... but my point with the Condorcet loser thing is that FPTP can produce the actual worst possible result, especially if people vote honestly instead of tactically for one of the big parties against their real preferences. It's just not a democratic system at all. What do you find unfair about it, specifically?
Honestly this is such a low bar that AV can't help being better- FPTP really is that bad. It's a more representative system and a step forward
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Well, to be fair, you personally find it to be the worst possible result. I personally would find being represented by someone I didn't vote for and who appeared to be everyone else's "backup vote" worse. I truly believe that if you are politically motivated enough you can get rid of unpopular candidates (even when elected). In my opinion, strong governments are favorable to hung parliaments and coalition governments, which is why I believe AV to be the wrong choice.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT And no, the Condorcet loser is -by definition- the worst possible result. It's the candidate who is preferable to no-one, who the majority would reject in favour of every other possible candidate. This isn't just my opinion, that's the definition. A voting system shouldn't return this person as the winner
Hung parliaments only happen if the majority don't support one particular party - the system shouldn't be skewed towards giving them full power anyway against the public vote
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Are there any examples of a Condorcet loser? An empirically supported example? Or is this a hypothetical thought experiment? I realise the tone of this reply is condescending, but I am actually genuinely interested in the answer.
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT It's difficult to identify a Condorcet loser under FPTP since you need to know people's preferences (to be able to identify when a Condorcet loser exists) and they're obviously not polled under a FPTP election. The 2006 Nicaraguan election is an example though, where the (majority) right-wing vote was split between two candidates allowing the left-wing Daniel Ortega to win with a minority.
The extremist example is just a clear way of demonstrating it's entirely possible for it to happen
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics what is the realistic likelihood of such an event occurring? Sure AV guards against this, but is this a serious threat to our politics? If the candidate can be removed even after they have been elected, do we have to change the entire system to safeguard against a Condorcet loser? I realise you are expounding this point to detail the positives of AV, but, being in the opposition, I would question whether it is a real threat?
l3igT 9 months ago
@l3igT I'm not even bringing Condorcet losers up as a positive of AV - it's an absolute negative of FPTP. It's a core part of what makes it such a poor, half-arsed system for electing a representative
Look at tactical voting - say Lib voters vote Lab to keep the Cons out, and Lab wins. This is a common occurrence (and a necessity under FPTP for exactly this reason). If that vote was split, with Lib supporters voting for their real choice, the Cons would win, despite being the least popular
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics We have already discussed tactical voting haven't we? I am merely stating that the winning party would have indeed won the 'popular vote', by gaining the support of the largest single vote. I am contesting the point that having a second, third, fourth etc preference as a winning candidate is worse than a candidate who wins with first preferences (even if it is with a minority)
l3igT 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@l3igT Not if that person would lose in a 2-horse FPTP race with 2 or more of the other candidates, that's the whole problem of FPTP that AV'd have eliminated.
People have overlapping policies, causing vote-splitting. That's why FPTP can't tell you the 2-horse winner when there are 3 or more candidates. AV does in every case.
AV=majority rule.
FPTP isn't.
It's as simple as that.
Fraud was committed against our nation by enemies of it.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
This hung parliament arguement from the tories and the Labour donkeys wearing red rossettes is a deliberate attempt to confuse AV with proportional representation. AV will not produce more hung parliaments. Is this coalition any worse than a Conservative government on its own?
dhwilko 9 months ago
What is that on Ken Clarke's forehead?
A stitch up for politicians? Poor old politicians; they've had it so hard recently.
LukeBonnett 9 months ago
An explanation of the passage from 1:38 :
If a voter ranks candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 are eliminated, their vote goes to their 5th ranked vote. How is that complicated?
MadManMcGee 9 months ago
I think I'll be voting no, but not because of this video! The passage he reads from the AV rules makes perfect sense to me and AV is trivial to understand. I also think that it's irrelivant which system keeps the BNP out, they both do that successfully.
The problem for me is that AV results in more hung Parliaments which is fine unless it becomes really common and parties just assume they'll have to compromise when they write their manifestoes.
MatJaggard 9 months ago
@MatJaggard Preferential Voting does not result in more hung parliaments, just look at Australia, we've used the system federally since 1919 and we've only had 2 hung parliaments since its inception
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
Why is he quoting an extract of a convoluted description of AV to challenge it's merit with the hope that it scares off people who don't understand it - it's not that complex, people aren't stupid
shedali 9 months ago
Youtube search this YpeTjtcRrIk
Its a video about 'vested interests' people who want to protect their position, their privileges and don't want change to happen EVEN if its in the country's best interest. Rather than the interest of the political establishment.
Vote for change! Vote Yes to AV. Cameron is a Hypocrite and a liar.
dhwilko 9 months ago
Vote Yes to AV tomorrow, don't listen to this toff
thewillpower100 9 months ago
I find it hilarious that Cameron's main reason for voting against AV is because it would favour parties like the BNP. AV would result in small parties having less chance of getting seats (not just BNP or Monster Raving Loony Party, but also Socialist parties and the Greens), hence the reason that the BNP are completely anti-AV.
termibrod 9 months ago
@RichardElden Nobody wants to listen to your opinion on anything. You have already voiced your support for Adolf Hitler. Why the fuck would we want to listen to your lame half assed views on reform? You said you support a right wing military dictatorship, not democracy. Such a lame troll,
ToaJoe 9 months ago
Cameron's such a smug tosspot.
Fladoodle11 9 months ago
With Camerons powers to manipulate public opinion using lies and fear, no wonder David Cameron is in favour of more referendums. He does know how AV works but he's bending the truth to protect the status quo. Along with his new Labour friends. The donkeys wearing red rosettes like John prescott and Margaret Becket who feel threatened by the though of having to campaign for votes. Most of them would scare the children.
dhwilko 9 months ago
idiots. AV is simple. My 9 year old niece understands it. It's basically just an elimination. There is more voting to be done but that means it's a much fairer system.
But even so. Most of the parties are pretty much the same anyway (The ones that will win).
TaisenkiByakko 9 months ago
It seems that David Cameron doesn't understand how AV actually works. Votes for less popular parties will be counted less, not more, because they'll be knocked out earlier. The comparison to 100m sprinting is completely illegitimate.
Whether or AV is better or not, these arguments are not good ones.
SalamandraTheNinja 9 months ago
@SalamandraTheNinja Errrr I think you missed the point? he is saying that those people who vote for majority parties will get more votes. That is a fact. AV is a stupid solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
clippy 9 months ago
This video is WRONG.
Do not listen to this PR man.
MatthewJohnGardner 9 months ago
he shoud explain why they use av inside the conservative party!
eddiguesti 9 months ago
I do think FTPT needs to be changed, I just don't think AV is the way to go about it. The reason we're having the referendum is because we have a hung parliament - the first one in a verrry long time. AV is just going to create this problem much more frequently. I'm voting no to AV, and I don't do politic so I don't know other options but I'm sure there is much fairer and simpler method than both FPTP and AV.
bekkiigrogie 9 months ago
i want monarchy
nokineeded 9 months ago
When he says it's worked for 100s of years, he should have said "it's worked for two parties for the last few hundred years".
He also is treating the electorate like idiots.
Hung parliaments sometimes happen when you have more than 2 parties in a system, get over it.
I'd like to add I feel PR is better than AV but the Conservatives wouldn't allow a referendum on that because they know that PR is clearly a fairer system so it would be accepted and they'd lose seats.
NattyMcCool777 9 months ago 7
@NattyMcCool777 PR is more unfair. on the surface it seems better, but It ignores marginal demographics, most notable those in the country side, elections would become a clamour to appease the cities.
Look at the map of Britain at the last election, it was majority blue, but because the majority of people live in cities it becomes grossly unfair.
AV is pointless, if you back a horse and lose, suck it up and move on. Dont cry and try and rig the race.
clippy 9 months ago
@NattyMcCool777 what's pr? Is it like FPTP
EmperorOfTrolls 9 months ago
@NattyMcCool777
what about a combo of both AV and PR?
and i do fear that a lower voting turnout would happend if we went to PR, because then people would feel their vote wouldnt count for as much. if u get me
adecadewithoutlove 9 months ago
@adecadewithoutlove
A combination of PR and AV could work (it does in Scotland and Wales for their local councils). It would help maintain a representative from a specific area to the House of Commons and would also make the seats divided more proportionally (not totally).
I don't think with PR that people woud feel their vote counts for less because most people when they're voting for their MP are actually more bothered about which party's going to be in power.
NattyMcCool777 9 months ago
@adecadewithoutlove
A combination of PR and AV could work (it does in Scotland and Wales for their local councils). It would help maintain a representative from a specific area to the House of Commons and would also make the seats divided more proportionally (not totally).
I don't think with PR that people woud feel their vote counts for less because most people when they're voting for their MP are actually more bothered about which party's going to be in power.
Innit bled
NattyMcCool777 9 months ago
He could of just come on and said "I am one of the dumbest motherfuckers in the world" the fact that this guy got in is a fucking joke. I mean how dumb do you have to be to vote conservative. It's just mind numbing thinking that because people aren't intelligent enough scum like this cunt gets in. I could out reason this cunt and I'm 15 for fucks sake. What happened to leader with balls. I know they weren't connected enough to get into politics.
THEBIUEMUPPET 9 months ago
AHH fucking hell AV MAKES HUNG PARLIAMENTS NO MORE LIKELY BECAUSE IT'S IN CONSTITUENCIES. THIS IS NOT PR JESUS CHRIST.
Now we've got that out the way, it also wont cost the £250 million the tories say it will- it's just a made up number with no foundation
Muzikman127 9 months ago
AV is a piece of crap.
andreiradu1945 9 months ago
AV is a majoritarian system... go figure
ryapie 9 months ago
@RichardElden It is a waste of time and more expensive....i think one person = 1 vote!!! It really is a waste of time and money and more confusing too! Plus the only party that will benefit from this are the Liberals hence why they are in favour....also how can the person that comes 3rd become prime minister? That is unfair and undemocratic....i agree with you!! The AV is a stupid waste of time!!! even senior Labour members are against it!
Supersmooth007 9 months ago
If you are selfish and live in a marginal, vote no. If you don't want another century of Tory/Labour hegemony, vote yes.
PNETriffid 9 months ago
AV WILL NOT COST 250 MILLION.
AV WILL NOT MEAN MORE HUNG PARLIAMENTS/COALITIONS.
THESE ARE LIES MADE BY RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE TORIES TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC.
VOTE YES TO FORCE CAMERON TO RESIGN AS TORY LEADER
ToaJoe 9 months ago
@ToaJoe Then how much will it cost? I would like to vote YES to AV, but I'm worried that the AV system is a luxury we can't afford at present.
rritz1 9 months ago
@rritz1 I wish I could talk to every single person like you. You are clearly a sensible person who wants to vote yes but is concerned that the bullshit from the Tory no campaign might be true.
I can assure you it will NOT cost 250 million! The change would cost the same as a general election, NOT 250 million. Spread the word that the No campaign is LYING. It will NOT lead to coalitions, it will NOT cost 250 million, and it WILL hurt Cameron.
ToaJoe 9 months ago
NO2AV. Av will give second rate partys. Say libdem, labour and tory voters all put say the greenparty as there second choice, they would win, even if they only had say 15% of the votes at the start.... how is that fair? who ever has the most votes should win. how is it fair that greenparty get in with only 15% of first prefernece votes when one of the "big 3" had say 48% of first round votes...it isnt.
annomymusic 9 months ago
@annomymusic That's not the way it works. Even if you put green party as your second choice, they would not have enough votes to take over your first ones, as they would have already been counted. Basic maths. You say whoever has the most votes should win, but what if (e.g.) the tories get 30%, labour get 25%, libdem 23%, green 12% and BNP 10%? Are you saying that because the tories got 5% more votes than labour they should go against 70% of who the population wants in? That's FPTP for ya.
WhyYouJelly 9 months ago
@annomymusic because 52% didnt wanted one of your big parties and sometime people dont vote on what they want but like here in canada we have 2 liberal parties , the NDP and the liberals and some people dont care which one to vote for as long as they win because they dont want our tories to get in.
snowboarder1019 9 months ago
"it's worked for hundreds of years" err no, it's worked for YOU. NOT for the voters - this is a joke!
DMcLeanUWE 9 months ago
Comment removed
JaguarEarlobe 9 months ago
This is a campaign of misinformation. Cameron keeps saying that the person in 3rd can end up winning yet he was never really in 3rd and the candidate in 1st was never in 1st because the majority didn't vote for the candidate originally in 1st. AV gives the power back to the majority.
TheJacobiteScotty 9 months ago
But what is fair about an MP coming 3rd is entitled to be PM!? I think AV is more confusing, it is expensive and the results could turn out as disproportional when compared to PR systems or FPTP. Also it requires a great level of numeracy and literacy to be used efficiently. Plus if very few people go out to vote then whats the point anyway? the current system is far more easier and straight forward...just put a cross by a box!! AV can lead to hung parliaments too!
Supersmooth007 9 months ago
@Supersmooth007 more confusing? If your brain can't manage to place four or five candidates in order of preference then you deserve the Tory/Labour Party to govern over you forever.
PNETriffid 9 months ago
Comment removed
Supersmooth007 9 months ago
@Supersmooth007 The only main party that will benefit from this voting system are the Lib Dems...hence perhaps because they always come 3rd!?? I mean, now you know why only 3 countries use it worldwide! Please see my video on Alternative vote....!! Also David Cameron is not saying a No to AV because he is scared of losing power or seats...what about the senior Labour MP's that have said NO to AV!??
Supersmooth007 9 months ago
@Supersmooth007 It's a two-party system where Labour and the Conservatives are guaranteed to be in power half the time and pick up extra support through tactical voting... and you're surprised they're both against reforming that system and making it harder for themselves? Really?
cactustactics 9 months ago
God this chap makes my skin crawl
sarahdoodles 9 months ago
av sounds fair to me, more chance of the winner actually being someone i chose rather than someone winning that i didn't want to win at all, and thats all that matters
Vegi71 9 months ago