The Official Unofficial AV referendum

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Fri May 06, 2011 4:54 pm

Well, thank you England. You either don't understand the voting system or you believed the lier Cameron.

I wonder which country I can move to because this one disgusts me.

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:00 pm

Well, to summarise.

Cameron told the country that you lot are too stupid to understand AV so it would be a disaster if we used it.

I guess he was right.

lexaal · Post by **lexaal** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:10 pm

Could we use ASGS for voting instead of a simple forum poll. And will CSS support FPTP and AV?

fuzzylunkin1 · Post by **fuzzylunkin1** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:13 pm

Every time someone says "FPTP" I keep thinking "PFTP"

.

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:16 pm

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ May 3 2011, 01:08 PM) Anyone hear the interview David Cameron did this morning with john Humphrys about AV where he Called Humphry stupid, and told him to go back to school? Text here

Wow that's quite something.

The best counter I heard to the "some people get more than one point of view" is that "people get more than one vote so long as all but one of their votes are discounted" which I thought was a great way to explain it.

I'm staggered at the extent of the "no" vote, around 70%. Why is this? Is it really because everyone thinks it's too complicated? Is it an anti Lib-Dem vote, as has been seen in the other elections happening today? Perhaps a lot of people are voting with regards to how it would impact them - if there's a clear leader in their constituency that they like they would vote to keep the current system, & others (like notj) may feel that neither way would make a difference so he don't bother to vote.

Perhaps if Miliband & Clegg had campaigned together on this issue more people would've voted for them. But the impression I get from the press has been Cameron says no, Clegg says yes, and Labour don't really care... why didn't they campaign together? Maybe Labour thought it would affect their votes if they were seen to be too friendly with the unpopular Lib Dems?

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:18 pm

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ May 6 2011, 08:16 PM) I'm staggered at the extent of the "no" vote, around 70%.

Stupidity. Abject, paste eating stupidity.

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:19 pm

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ May 6 2011, 05:16 PM) Wow that's quite something. The best counter I heard to the "some people get more than one point of view" is that "people get more than one vote so long as all but one of their votes are discounted" which I thought was a great way to explain it.

I'm staggered at the extent of the "no" vote, around 70%. Why is this? Is it really because everyone thinks it's too complicated? Is it an anti Lib-Dem vote, as has been seen in the other elections happening today? Perhaps a lot of people are voting with regards to how it would impact them - if there's a clear leader in their constituency that they like they would vote to keep the current system, & others (like notj) may feel that neither way would make a difference so he don't bother to vote.

Perhaps if Miliband & Clegg had campaigned together on this issue more people would've voted for them. But the impression I get from the press has been Cameron says no, Clegg says yes, and Labour don't really care... why didn't they campaign together? Maybe Labour thought it would affect their votes if they were seen to be too friendly with the unpopular Lib Dems?

Miliband couldn't get labours support on it.

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Fri May 06, 2011 6:54 pm

Well it's official.

People would rather have the minority of people deciding what we do.

I've had a 2nd thought on this matter though. Apparently one version of the AV is where you HAVE to vote for all parties in order (instead of just voting for the ones you want in order and if they're all knocked out your vote is discounted). If that's the case then I don't blame people so much as that's stupid (looking at you aussies) however the "normal" or more sensible version (of just voting for the parties who are similar in order of preference) just makes sense over FPTP.

An example I gave to anyone who asked.

A group of 7 mates want to go out, 3 people say the dance club is where they want to go, 2 guys say the rock club but wouldn't mind the indie club. 2 guys say the indie club but wouldn't mind the blues or the rock. 1 guy really wants the blues.

1)In FPTP you'd end up in the dance club even though clearly 4 guys want anything but.
2)In AV (as I stated) you'd end up at either the rock or indie.
3)In proportional you'd start in the blues, move quickly to the indie then the rock and ending in the dance club.

Which sounds like a more typical night to you? For my group of mates it would end up 3 so everyone got a bit of what they wanted and stayed in good company.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Fri May 06, 2011 7:50 pm

Dorj why use words when this sums it up (stolen from other thread)

P.S.

going out to more then 1 club a night is rare, 2 would be max, 3+ would be never (barring sausage fest circumstances)

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Fri May 06, 2011 8:06 pm

Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ May 6 2011, 09:54 PM) A group of 7 mates want to go out, 3 people say the dance club is where they want to go, 2 guys say the rock club but wouldn't mind the indie club. 2 guys say the indie club but wouldn't mind the blues or the rock. 1 guy really wants the blues.

3)In proportional you'd start in the blues, move quickly to the indie then the rock and ending in the dance club.

Which sounds like a more typical night to you? For my group of mates it would end up 3 so everyone got a bit of what they wanted and stayed in good company.

I think the proportional voting analogue would be more like everybody goes to their own choise of night club... or the Dance Club party forms a coalition with either the Rock or the Indie group. Then having five out of the eight votes, they would decide between themselves where to go. (hmm, the analogue may not work that well for proportional representation).

Anyway, you done screwed this up brits. Now you're stuck with the two party system for a few more decades.