British people are pretty stupid. They seem to genuinely think that they are electing the PM or even voting for a PM candidate. People only vote between the politicians in their district.
@secretsantaone Sorry but the liberals have always been the silly party of hippy ideals of chocalate rivers, trees of candyfloss,and a great big melting pot of humane love!...unfortunatly if they were in government we would now be slaves of Iran,russia ,america ,china and the EU ...as they luv!... Everyone!..
Just listen to the explanation on this video utter wishy washy maddness.. no normal person on the street would understand any of it ? or want, It was part of cleggs plan for more votes.
The explanation wasn't 'wishy washy madness', it just explained the voting system. It's extremely arrogant to think that no one would understand it, who are you to speak for the 'normal person on the street'?
And Clegg doesn't want more votes, he wants more seats, but the voting system is shit. Statistically, the Lib Dems got 23% of the national vote last election, but only got 9% of the seats. Meanwhile, the Conservatives got 36% of the vote and 47% of the seats. How is that fair?
what a CON-JOB. 1 man, one vote it has been and should be - as long as we actually get to post our ballots! A significant portion of the vote didn't even get entered last GE because of polling stations opening late, voting machines breaking down, and other assorted bullshit that prevented people from even getting in through the door!
David Cameron and John Reid, et al, have argued that AV violates the principle of one-man-one-vote. This, of course, is not true. One is not compelled to choose any alternative candidates. And since only one candidate can be declared the winner, only one vote out of the preferences indicated, leads to the winning candidate.
Consider an AV election with 3 candidates A, B, C, and 9 votes: ABC / AB- / ACB / BCA / BCA / BC- / BC- / CAB / CAB... 55% prefer A to B, 67% B to C, & 67% C to A. To any one winner, a majority prefer another candidate. Majority support is mythical. So AV ignores some lower preferences (runner up) but inflates others; to distort the poll and fabricate a faux 50% mandate. It's a dysfunctional part-step to STV (which abandons the 50%/1MP myth). We want one or the other, not a perverse conflation.
@abh88abh If you want true PR vote yes to get AV and when people see the world doesn't end we can have a sensible discussion about AV+. If you vote no it'll be taken as an endorement for FPTP (whether that's what you mean or not) and electoral reform will be dead for a generation or more.
@nathankw This is no open-end review of FPTP. Yes is explicit endorsement of AV, which is probably more excuse not to change. We've been stuffed either way by this referendum in that respect. Sensible discussion about AV+? Side-doors on top of indeterministic votes; Inconsistent, abstracted, non-monotone & encouraging of beige centrism. Democratically on par with FPTP.
-1 to 3 Range Voting for weighted representation in 2 member constituencies pending executive elections would be ideal.
@abh88abh If you want true PR vote yes to get AV and when people see the world doesn't end we can have a sensible discussion about PR (eg AV+). If you vote no it'll be taken as an endorement for FPTP (whether that's what you mean or not) and electoral reform will be dead for a generation or more.
If this system was there, I would probably still only vote one party, just because after comparing them all, there's probably only one I'd want my vote to go to.
@nehalp100 That's fine, and you can do that if you really want to. But you still have the option to say 'well, if my first choice doesn't win, I'd prefer *this* candidate over the rest, and if not them then *that* one' and so on, and still have a say in who you think would be the best people for the job. It's completely up to you
How come people doing these demos always allow the second candidate to win.. when in the majoirty of cases the top candidate will win... unless there is a massive amount of sleaze etc...or the PM is deeply unpopular... otherwise it as it. Its not a huge change to the voting system just a 'tiny' change in the right direction
I think it might help if you made blue win anyway in this video, since the problem with the AV campaign so far is all the videos have made a second place candidate JUMP to first in an effort to illustrate fairness, but if we illustrated some blue votes winning under AV as well, using second preferences, that might help.
@JPBStory Because the Conservatives figured out that, under this system, they would no longer benefit from the left-wing vote being fragmented between SDLP, Liberal Democrats, Labour and SNP. As a result, they've begun a hardcore propaganda campaign consisting entirely of poor strawman arguments which we know as the No Campaign.
Very clear and precise. I think illustrating it's similarity to exhaustive voting and the run-off system concept would be good too. The simple reason is the no2av falsely claims that it's not 1-person, 1 vote. If you look at it though, it is - in each round everyone gets one vote, as only the votes for the lowest candidates are removed and if there are any preferences then they go to the next preference.
@TheTrigg1992 it's not about this government. It's about the whole future of our democracy, and fixing a very simple, stupid problem with our current system: that you can be elected, even if most people voting are actively opposed to your views. It's much bigger than this government.
@TheTrigg1992 Did you not see how the AV system worked? Was it too difficult to work out? There will be less likelihood of a hung parliament with this system.
There is a reason (probably) that only a few countries drive on the left, so shall we stop doing that? Stupid argument.
I'm smart enough to realise that FPTP is an antiquated and unfair system. Shame you're not.
@TheTrigg1992 "back-room deals" end up becoming part of the legislative timetable in the Queen's annual speech so they're no big secret. Sure they discuss what they can agree on, but it's not a conspiracy. And of course people have preferences so it's not wrong to say "put us down as 2nd choice because we'll do our best for you, like no other party will". Hung parliaments rarely happen, from Australia's experience of their federal government.
@Psepto How AV+ works?
sebek23b 3 days ago
British people are pretty stupid. They seem to genuinely think that they are electing the PM or even voting for a PM candidate. People only vote between the politicians in their district.
TacticusPrime 4 months ago
liberal losers who have not realised normal people hate them.......
BREDATOR1 5 months ago
@BREDATOR1 @Broatch6
What great arguments you guys have.
secretsantaone 4 months ago
@secretsantaone Sorry but the liberals have always been the silly party of hippy ideals of chocalate rivers, trees of candyfloss,and a great big melting pot of humane love!...unfortunatly if they were in government we would now be slaves of Iran,russia ,america ,china and the EU ...as they luv!... Everyone!..
Just listen to the explanation on this video utter wishy washy maddness.. no normal person on the street would understand any of it ? or want, It was part of cleggs plan for more votes.
BREDATOR1 4 months ago
@BREDATOR1
The explanation wasn't 'wishy washy madness', it just explained the voting system. It's extremely arrogant to think that no one would understand it, who are you to speak for the 'normal person on the street'?
And Clegg doesn't want more votes, he wants more seats, but the voting system is shit. Statistically, the Lib Dems got 23% of the national vote last election, but only got 9% of the seats. Meanwhile, the Conservatives got 36% of the vote and 47% of the seats. How is that fair?
secretsantaone 4 months ago
what a CON-JOB. 1 man, one vote it has been and should be - as long as we actually get to post our ballots! A significant portion of the vote didn't even get entered last GE because of polling stations opening late, voting machines breaking down, and other assorted bullshit that prevented people from even getting in through the door!
thelostpacket 8 months ago
morons
Broatch6 9 months ago
David Cameron and John Reid, et al, have argued that AV violates the principle of one-man-one-vote. This, of course, is not true. One is not compelled to choose any alternative candidates. And since only one candidate can be declared the winner, only one vote out of the preferences indicated, leads to the winning candidate.
charlessmyth 10 months ago
Consider an AV election with 3 candidates A, B, C, and 9 votes: ABC / AB- / ACB / BCA / BCA / BC- / BC- / CAB / CAB... 55% prefer A to B, 67% B to C, & 67% C to A. To any one winner, a majority prefer another candidate. Majority support is mythical. So AV ignores some lower preferences (runner up) but inflates others; to distort the poll and fabricate a faux 50% mandate. It's a dysfunctional part-step to STV (which abandons the 50%/1MP myth). We want one or the other, not a perverse conflation.
abh88abh 10 months ago
@abh88abh If you want true PR vote yes to get AV and when people see the world doesn't end we can have a sensible discussion about AV+. If you vote no it'll be taken as an endorement for FPTP (whether that's what you mean or not) and electoral reform will be dead for a generation or more.
nathankw 10 months ago
@nathankw This is no open-end review of FPTP. Yes is explicit endorsement of AV, which is probably more excuse not to change. We've been stuffed either way by this referendum in that respect. Sensible discussion about AV+? Side-doors on top of indeterministic votes; Inconsistent, abstracted, non-monotone & encouraging of beige centrism. Democratically on par with FPTP.
-1 to 3 Range Voting for weighted representation in 2 member constituencies pending executive elections would be ideal.
abh88abh 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abh88abh If you want true PR vote yes to get AV and when people see the world doesn't end we can have a sensible discussion about PR (eg AV+). If you vote no it'll be taken as an endorement for FPTP (whether that's what you mean or not) and electoral reform will be dead for a generation or more.
nathankw 10 months ago
If this system was there, I would probably still only vote one party, just because after comparing them all, there's probably only one I'd want my vote to go to.
nehalp100 10 months ago
@nehalp100 That's fine, and you can do that if you really want to. But you still have the option to say 'well, if my first choice doesn't win, I'd prefer *this* candidate over the rest, and if not them then *that* one' and so on, and still have a say in who you think would be the best people for the job. It's completely up to you
cactustactics 10 months ago
If you understand the final stages of X Factor, then AV is simple.
Exeunt26 10 months ago
How come people doing these demos always allow the second candidate to win.. when in the majoirty of cases the top candidate will win... unless there is a massive amount of sleaze etc...or the PM is deeply unpopular... otherwise it as it. Its not a huge change to the voting system just a 'tiny' change in the right direction
austinwrk 10 months ago
i like this. If we want to use AV in my office, for pub selection say, now I know one way.
gregreman 10 months ago
I think it might help if you made blue win anyway in this video, since the problem with the AV campaign so far is all the videos have made a second place candidate JUMP to first in an effort to illustrate fairness, but if we illustrated some blue votes winning under AV as well, using second preferences, that might help.
skellious 10 months ago 4
Why would anyone vote no to this? I really don't understand it.
=-)
JPBStory 10 months ago 3
@JPBStory Because the Conservatives figured out that, under this system, they would no longer benefit from the left-wing vote being fragmented between SDLP, Liberal Democrats, Labour and SNP. As a result, they've begun a hardcore propaganda campaign consisting entirely of poor strawman arguments which we know as the No Campaign.
Darkdude929 10 months ago
No
Watkins581 10 months ago
Very clear and precise. I think illustrating it's similarity to exhaustive voting and the run-off system concept would be good too. The simple reason is the no2av falsely claims that it's not 1-person, 1 vote. If you look at it though, it is - in each round everyone gets one vote, as only the votes for the lowest candidates are removed and if there are any preferences then they go to the next preference.
uberduke 10 months ago 23
explains how the Alternative Vote works very well in a simple way.
tarquindewinter 10 months ago 16
yes lets fuck this government even more
TheTrigg1992 10 months ago 3
@TheTrigg1992 it's not about this government. It's about the whole future of our democracy, and fixing a very simple, stupid problem with our current system: that you can be elected, even if most people voting are actively opposed to your views. It's much bigger than this government.
ecartilage 10 months ago 3
@ecartilage right dude so basically you want more hung parliaments more back room deals
there is a reason this system is only used in 3 other countries i will be voting no hopefully everyone else is smart enough to
TheTrigg1992 10 months ago
@TheTrigg1992 hilarious.
ecartilage 10 months ago
@ecartilage i know i am so go gargle some cock
TheTrigg1992 10 months ago
@TheTrigg1992 Source on more hung parliaments? Also, it's used in more than three countries.
bakadazcha 10 months ago
@TheTrigg1992 Did you not see how the AV system worked? Was it too difficult to work out? There will be less likelihood of a hung parliament with this system.
There is a reason (probably) that only a few countries drive on the left, so shall we stop doing that? Stupid argument.
I'm smart enough to realise that FPTP is an antiquated and unfair system. Shame you're not.
andygriff1987 10 months ago 2
@TheTrigg1992 "back-room deals" end up becoming part of the legislative timetable in the Queen's annual speech so they're no big secret. Sure they discuss what they can agree on, but it's not a conspiracy. And of course people have preferences so it's not wrong to say "put us down as 2nd choice because we'll do our best for you, like no other party will". Hung parliaments rarely happen, from Australia's experience of their federal government.
uberduke 10 months ago