Free Allegiance Forums

No, Sharpfish doesn't vote remember

Wow, so Cameron wants the first past the post to be kept? NO SURPRISE!

Also, I love how @#(!ty these "NO TO AV" posters are.

Is it true Australia already has the AV and you guys want shot of it?

Pretty much all the media seems to be against it.

I'm guessing because it'd ruin their lobbying.

Yeah cookie, according to the latest polls the No's seem to have it.

This leaflet dropped through my door yesterday.
http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ
Look someone helpfully labelled this one....

Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 18 2011, 11:42 PM) Pretty much all the media seems to be against it.

I'm guessing because it'd ruin their lobbying.

even a broken clock is right twice a day, av is stupid and will solve nothing

av is pretty stupid, but slightly less so than the current system IMO.

It all depends what you mean when you say democracy, who it applies to, and how it applies.

Is it right that people can get elected even though 60% of the people in their constituency openly despise them? If you think this is so FPTP is for you.
If you think a politician should have at least tacit acceptance by a majority of the people they claim to represent - then AV is prolly for you.
If you think the Parliament of a country should relatively accurately represent the political views of the country - PR is for you.

Sadly there seems to be no grown up debate about the political system going on. The No campaign seems to be winning through a series of demonstrably untrue, stupid and simplistic claims. The failure in this referendum will mean we will be stuck with this system for a long long time (sigh).

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Apr 20 2011, 02:40 PM) av is pretty stupid, but slightly less so than the current system IMO.

It all depends what you mean when you say democracy, who it applies to, and how it applies.

Is it right that people can get elected even though 60% of the people in their constituency openly despise them? If you think this is so FPTP is for you.
If you think a politician should have at least tacit acceptance by a majority of the people they claim to represent - then AV is prolly for you.
If you think the Parliament of a country should relatively accurately represent the political views of the country - PR is for you.

Sadly there seems to be no grown up debate about the political system going on. The No campaign seems to be winning through a series of demonstrably untrue, stupid and simplistic claims. The failure in this referendum will mean we will be stuck with this system for a long long time (sigh).

The whole problem with that argument is that it assumes that "the 60%" arent effectively represented by their MP solely because they didnt vote for him or her (or more accurately in these modern times, because they didnt vote for his or her party) - something which is nonsense, given that MPs can both zealously represent all their constituents irrespective of whether they voted for them, and zealously ignore or belittle long-standing supporters who voted them into office in the first place. Carried to its logical conclusion, the argument about non-representation of course ends up with the voter being disenfranchised, denied his or her democratic rights and treated as a second-class citizen unless their party is in power - which of course usually leads to things kicking off.

As Agri said earlier, the problems with our democracy would not be solved by AV. In fact, they are nothing do do with FPTP (at least, nothing caused by FPTP, though it is abused) either - what we need to do is to decentralize and break the national power of the three main parties, take the lobby money out of politics and get decent MPs of whatever political persuasion into office and zealously questioning the executive. AV would not do any of this.

Which was the system where you vote for a national party and a local candidate again?

I think I like that one best now.

Mixed Member Proportional, I think, the one we tried having in Ontario that failed referendum.

I think the argument that it doesn't matter if a candidate is elected against the wishes of 60% of their constituents because they still represent their whole constituency is silly for several reasons.

For starters, the people who voted against this candidate presumably had reasons for doing so. Perhaps this candidate doesn't reflect their values, doesn't support the policies they want to see implemented, or is thought by them to be incompetent. So this candidate representing them still seems like a problem.

Secondly, I don't know how it is in Britainland, but here in Canada MPs care first and foremost about their parties and their party leaders, at least in the vast majority of cases. Representing their constituency is a distant second priority.

Thirdly, the whole argument is silly. I guess even an unelected dictator can be democratic, then, since they can just represent all the people who didn't vote for them...

tsubaki_sanjuro wrote:QUOTE (tsubaki_sanjuro @ Apr 20 2011, 05:21 PM) The whole problem with that argument is that it assumes that "the 60%" arent effectively represented by their MP solely because they didnt vote for him or her (or more accurately in these modern times, because they didnt vote for his or her party) - something which is nonsense, given that MPs can both zealously represent all their constituents irrespective of whether they voted for them, and zealously ignore or belittle long-standing supporters who voted them into office in the first place. Carried to its logical conclusion, the argument about non-representation of course ends up with the voter being disenfranchised, denied his or her democratic rights and treated as a second-class citizen unless their party is in power - which of course usually leads to things kicking off.

That's ridiculous, why bother with a vote at all then might as well just be a lottery.

Frankly your more likely to get an in independent MP into power under AV then under FPTP as people will be less afraid to vote for the independent rather then trying to strategically vote to keep out whichever of the big two parties they dislike more.