That's a fair criticism on the two systems. Belgium has a PR system and it's a huge particracy. When you're an MP, you basically always have to follow the official party line or you'll have to start a new party, which often happens. Most people just vote on the party list, and not the individuals, because the individual politicians don't matter much anyway, not as much as the parties. This seriously is a pathology in the system. But, I do think it's still more democratic then a FPTP system, because in the case of a FPTP system, a government could be in place while they received only 30% of the votes, while half of the population didn't go out to vote, which means only a small percentage of the population voted on them. I think the AV system would be an improvement, but I don't know how much it would change... The mixed system might have the least disadvantages. I don't think list MPs are necessarily bad ones.. Another reason why they don't come out to vote could be that they know that in their constituency, their party of preference never gets the majority, so they think it's a waste of time to go out and vote. It'd be interesting to see the results if there was compulsory voting.. I think what you're saying makes sense, and it seems to be that the big ideologies people used to have are converging toward some kind of consensus everyone agrees on. I do think apart from the "big ideology" question there's a lot of stuff the parties disagree on like, social welfare, education, migration policy and foreign policy. And from what I understand is the coalition government not working out?
It's working...insofar as there are no signs of substantial splits between the two parties..or internal agitation..and they're managing to push on with their programme, such as it is. Of course, that's not to say the things they're doing are widely popular etc etc.
So given that the referendum is almost upon us, has anyone come to any startling revelations about the whole thing? I'll start: both the yes and no campaigns are run by complete morons. That aside, I still think I'll be voting yes.
nope having trouble getting a voting card so looks like I won't have a say - some cockup because it was misentered that I am US citizen My husband was entered as UK which means he who has no vote can lol
I haven't seen any campaigns... After looking up about voting systems, I decided to vote 'Yes' (I've got a postal vote so already voted ). I'm still not completely sure about our current voting system and the alternative voting system (I know I really should), but I figured it might be nice to vote for change. I guess that doesn't completely justify my voting, but yeah.
Figured I'd reactive this as voting is tomorrow (except for those who didn't do it by post). I was discussing the AV with my family yesterday, and I can now justify that I voted 'Yes' because I'm much clearer about it. The AV system is a lot fairer, because right now the party in charge is actually only elected by about a third or something which isn't really representative of what we want. I could go on, but basically it's a fairer system so vote 'Yes'! It's a chance for change and to make history, so vote 'Yes'!
Yes to fairer votes. Yes to reform of our antiquated electoral system. Yes to shaking up the political status quo. Yes to voter re-engagement with politics. Yes to the population being intelligent enough to count. Yes to the progressive majority. Yes to the promise of more reform on the horizon. A hearty and resounding NO to David Cameron, the Conservatives, and right-wing fear-driven nonsense. YES TO AV! *ahem* In case anyone wondered where I stood on the matter
Couldn't be clearer I've already voted by post, a definite YES. So have my husband and younger son. My oldest son is voting in person tomorrow -he doesn't know which way.
I've already voted by postal ballot too. But I'm encouraging everyone who will listen to vote yes. It's the one chance this generation has to break the Conservative's political monopoly. If your son needs persuading, show him this:
*Gets into noggin of the person running the YES campaign* Quite outrageous the NO camp are assuming the electorate is so thick as to be bewildered by AV. Umm, how best to promote AV? Oh, I know, some graphics and talk of kids choosing what pub to go to. LOL. You couldn't make it up. I will be voting no in a minute. Not least because I would hate to see those awful Lib Dems - those vile u-turnists re student loans - retaining power for the next thirty years or so.
I'm voting 'No' - I just find it to be an over complication to a system that is working fine, so far as I can tell. As liberal as I am I'm also an antiquarian. When I say 'over complication' it does not mean 'I don't understand it', I just think that with voting, the earlier we find out the results the better; and what I can see resulting from this change is a LOT more work-hours going into the vote counting. Something which just isn't needed.
^ Bah, you should both be voting 'Yes'. I don't like how there hasn't been much coverage of this. It would've been nice if they actually had a debate/discussion about the voting system or something, and properly explained it to everyone. I know it's probably because the leaders don't want the AV vote, but still.
Well, that isn't going to sway me. I really don't mind the system as it currently is - AV just seems like a way for the Lib Dems and the more unpopular parties to have a better chance to me. Which might prove dangerous. Especially with the rise in the far right that we have seen in the past few years with the BNP and the Christian Party. Neither of which I would ever want in power. Even SNP I don't want in, and I'm Scottish.
See, that just seems an awfully short-termist way of looking at it. It may benefit the Lib Dems more, but only if people actually vote for them- there needs to be the support in the first place, which arguably there isn't at present. And if you don't like them, don't vote for them. To me, AV is more about moving towards a system of voting fairer than at present. I don't believe it's the final destination, and ideally I think I'd prefer either an AV+ or STV system- but we're never going to get there if there's a No vote today. Honestly, that's the most rational No argument I've heard so far. Putting aside the fact that I disagree about the current system working, I accept that the counting times will be longer, meaning that Dimbleby will either have to take a ****load more of whatever drugs he was on, or take a nap mid-election broadcast. But really, I think that having a fairer democracy is worth the extra hours, though I accept that comes down to an individual (and subjective) value judgement. I don't buy the argument that it will help extremist parties. In the case of the BNP, I think that bigots vote for bigoted parties, and won't put a reasonable party as second choice. I can (sort of) see how a fully proportional system would deliver a better (marginally) result to the BNP, but I really don't think AV will help them. As for the Christian Party (who, despite being a Christian myself, I also don't want anywhere near power), the only way AV will affect them is that their voters will put a Tory candidate as a second preference. And whilst I don't like the idea of votes going to Tories, the majority of Christian Party voters under FPTP would just vote Tory anyway. I don't see that it would make much of a difference at all really. I know I'm not likely to persuade either of you, and truthfully that's not what I'm aiming to do. I'm just offering my thoughts on the matter
I can accept that it is just subjective judgement really; I just personally like the way it is now. To be honest, I base that 'argument' on very little, practically nothing. It's not really an argument, it's more of a concern that it might make these people more ambitious and loud. I have no problem with a party like the BNP getting a bit of airtime, because sometimes what people say is so self harming no further comment is really needed. What I really would be uneasy about is that - so far as I understand it - it could give them more influence than they already have; and I can see this AV being so easily taken advantage of by these smaller, fringe parties through various means. My issue with the Christian party is not their religion but their policies. I'm not a spiritual person, or religious person anyway, I'm a secularist. And I take great issue with things like: Taken from Wikipedia.
Completely agreed about the Christian Party. Their policies are insane, and I'd never vote for them on that basis. Those policies you listed are all ones that I take issue with too, and to be honest, I think there's already too much (frankly, dangerous) insanity haunting the commons behind the guise of Christianity (see, for example, Nadine Dorries' ridiculous Sex Education bill yesterday). I guess that I just don't see that AV would give them much of anything really.
I can't honestly say it will or it will not. I just see a great potential for it to be abused. Things need to be kept as simple as possible with this sort of thing, I think, otherwise it could be so easily corrupted.
Very true. I have no more hatred for the Lib dems than I have for any of the main parties. I said to it playfully irritate those woebegone students hereabouts who might have voted Yes today. My lack of passion for politics as it's currently practised is in large part due to the compromised nature of all the parties/politicians. AV will make that worse (as I went on about before). No more Tony Benns. No more Michael Foots. A great shame.
