Free Allegiance Forums

SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Apr 8 2011, 06:36 PM) Which is the same least-worst choice you get to make with AV. At any rate, the point is specious; lets say every microgroup with a shared view achieved parliamentary representation, what then? Well, sooner or later you have to come down to making decisions, enacting legislation, etc. And seeing as none of these microgroups can marshall a majority, they have to compromise. And in compromising, they defeat entirely the reason for which they were separately represented in the first place.

This is an amusing point to try to make considering that the only reason we have the chance to vote for this change anyway is because one of these "microgroups" compromised to get into power. When you have a coalition you get a broader range of views represented in government. Surely no-one would enter a coalition if zero of their policies were going to be implemented...

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 8 2011, 11:10 AM) Widely my foot. Both the UK and the US use outdated voting systems that create two party systems as almost unavoidable artifacts of flawed design.

Nonsense. None of the full-PR states have major parties that are neither lkabour nor capital. Indeed the difference in actual party memberships etc doesn't seem at all significant.


Gandalf wrote:
QUOTE his is an amusing point to try to make considering that the only reason we have the chance to vote for this change anyway is because one of these "microgroups" compromised to get into power.[/quote]

Nope, it demonstrates my point perfectly. What they wanted was PR, all they could swing was AV, which the Lib Dem;s themselves had previously denounced as a shabby compromise. So if you supported Lib Dems becuase you wanted PR, their coalition compromise ensured you did NOT get what you wanted.

QUOTE When you have a coalition you get a broader range of views represented in government[/quote]

Or in fact, a narrower range; Cameron is using the LibDems as bulwark against his Tebettite law-'n-order right, while Clegg and his Orange Book'ers hold off the left wing of the LibDems that came from the SDP. So what we have is a nice technocratic consensus, each insulated from its own party dissidents.

QUOTE Surely no-one would enter a coalition if zero of their policies were going to be implemented...[/quote]

Even if you'd not had a sniff of power since before women got the vote? At any rate, the LibDems did NOT get a referendum on PR, so what policies do you think they have managed to get implemented? Plus "who" is this exactly, in the LibDems? Becuase they have thrown so much of their own manifesto down the @#(!ter that their policy in government bears no resemblance to that advocated by the actual party.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Apr 8 2011, 05:47 PM) Old Labour
New Labour
Lib Dems
Ken Clark Tories
Thatcherites

?



??





???







Surely...






Old Labour
New Labour
Ken Clark Tories
Lib Dems
Thatcherites

Intrigued by the PRAVda debate, Le Canard enquired of his five year old for further enlightenment. Rolling her eyes, she loaded up a You Tube clip for him.

A Dummies guide to PR/AV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74K_fCHlBMk...feature=related

I'm annoyed by the nonsense of someone having more bites of the cherry so it's unfair.

Everyone gets the same number of votes, the only way they get less votes if they only have one choice and that choice goes out first and I don't see the problem there.

I think it might lose though because idiots like Clegg only spew out hyperbole of "it's like women's suffrage" bollocks will just make people vote against it to spite the smarmy bastard. He should stop going on about how it's like suffrage and liberal and just stick to the facts of why it's more fair (for the voters rather then the parties) then FPTP.

I see now why people tire of discussing politics with SharpFish. I'm not going to bother.

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 6 2011, 07:33 AM) We have the first-past-the-post system in Canada, and my feelings are similar. We had a referendum on changing it on the provincial level in Ontario back in 2007, but for some reason it failed. I honestly never understood why. I guess people were just scared that the alternative would be too complicated or something... Or, more likely, they managed to avoid hearing anything about the referendum, and, when presented with the confusing question, just picked the status quo option.

Because Mixed Member Proportional is no improvement over First Past the Post, at least in Ontario. It would contain the flaws of the old system ("discarded votes") and add some new ones - it would emphasize the GTA vote over low population areas, some MPs would not be responsible to a region, and you could vote for a party and have no idea which politician you are electing. As much as the Westminster system encourages uniform party voting, the behavior of the individual politician still matters.

The vote for or against MMP was a vote on the influence of regional power between the GTA and the rural areas, not a vote on electoral reform.

MMP would make sense in an area with more even population distribution, but not here. Single Transferrable Vote is ok, but I would still prefer the australian system of instant runoff voting. That, combined with eliminating the cash for votes incentive would kill off the minor vote-splitting parties who campaign every election but never elect a single candidate (see: Communist Party, Libertarian Party, Family Coalition Party, etc...).

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Apr 8 2011, 04:48 PM) I see now why people tire of discussing politics with SharpFish. I'm not going to bother.

Is it becuase I actually make an effort to know what I'm talking about?

SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Apr 9 2011, 02:32 AM) Is it becuase I actually make an effort to know what I'm talking about?

No because you sound arrogant and seem to be wearing blinders.

PR isn't going to work because with it you don't have a representative for your area, an MP's job is to look out for his constituency and that doesn't help when your not voting for a particular person.

I myself would like to see less of a party involvement in government as that simply transfers power from the many to the few (backbenchers to the cabinet with use of the whips). In regards to "getting things done" in a party-less/lite system a point will have to be argued and will pass on it's merits not simply because party whips order party members to vote one way. Laws will be passed if they have the support of the majority.

With AV your more likely to get independent/small parties winning seats who won't be controlled by whips and can be more trusted to vote an idea on it's merits, PR on the other hand will encourage parties to get even bigger and reduce knowing who you are voting for.

However if you want to be a sheep and tow the party line then that's up to you.

Fish, you seem to be under the frankly bizarre impression that in a 2 party system each party is homogeneous. As Cam pointed out a long time ago a 2 party system just encourages the coalition to form before rather than after the election. You could argue that this gives voters a fairer chance to understand what the policies enacted in government will be when they vote but that's clearly untrue as governments quite rarely maintain their manifesto for long into a parliament as things stand now.

A multi party system gives people a better chance to vote for what they actually believe in and then the coalition is formed based off those beliefs. It's not perfect but no system is.

You also seem surprised that all political parties in multi party systems fit onto the acknowledged political spectrum between socialist and conservative. I'm not entirely sure why this fact astounds you because it's, y'know, a spectrum. Just like in colours you can't bring out a paint that's an entirely new colour, you're unlikely to come up with a whole new political theory that doesn't fit somewhere in the existing spectrum. However giving the electorate a choice about exactly where on that spectrum they would like is a good thing rather than being forced to vote centre left or centre right.

Centrally selected candidates: Happens now, happens under AV, happens under Party list PR. What was your point exactly?

And finally as you point out you support a party that can never get elected in the current system which means that we can effectively ignore all your views just like the government does. Until there is some sort of reform your views are worthless.