'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion

Soubrette

GooeyBlob wrote: »

If you don't trust polls, perhaps you have a problem with democracy itself? Be honest, ask yourself if you will accept a resounding no vote in the referendum.

If you cannot accept the decision of the British people, that probably goes a long way to explaining why you want to change the voting system. I suspect you're unhappy with the results it has given, and believe that AV will produce different results.

I have no problem with AV losing because people understand the concept and have decided that they prefer to maintain the status quo.

I am unsure about calling something democratic when people do not understand the basics - for example Bel Mooney in the Mail has said that she will vote no because she believes in one man, one vote. I do not think she understands AV if that is the only reason she is voting against it.

Of course if she was honest and said that she was voting no as it benefits the conservative party (hypothetically speaking of course) - then I'd have no problem with her explanation.

Someone on this thread has said they will vote no because they believe it to be the best chance of getting PR in - I've never heard any analysis which shows this is even a remote possibility.

Of course these are all failings on the part of the 'yes' campaigners to put across their pov very successfully.

I am voting yes because although I prefer PR (it feels more democratic somehow), out of the two choices I'm offered AV seems the most democratic.

I hope that this will start to engage our increasingly disengaged electorate.

This latter is the most important concern for democracy - one man, one vote is becoming more like ten men, one vote. This situation is only good for the minority parties and is the most likely to lead to coalitions and hung parliaments.

redux

It's become clear that to begin with Cameron and Osborne weren't taking a lot of notice of this, but then they started to worry about how close it might be, and the mud-slinging nature of the campaign is definitely down to them.

The current system has served us well so far, they say. So it has - Conservative governments for most of the last century, from the votes of only 30 to 40% of the people.

They're seeing a chance to stitch things up for years to come, which, given that the last election produced a Conservative + Lberal Democrat government rather than Labour + Liberal Democrat one by a margin of not much at all, might be rather unrepresentative.

This is stretching the coalition to the point of breaking, with the squeeze on the Liberal Democrats vote at the moment keeping them almost involuntarily stuck in there against their instincts, but it doesn't bode well for these 2 parties being able to keep on good terms with each other in the future.

Soubrette

redux wrote: »

This is stretching the coalition to the point of breaking, with the squeeze on the Liberal Democrats vote at the moment keeping them almost involuntarily stuck in there against their instincts, but it doesn't bode well for these 2 parties being able to keep on good terms with each other in the future.

I think Dave Cameron might actually have shot himself in the foot on this one.

I can't see how Nick Clegg's position will remain tenable when one of the few concessions he managed to wring from the Conservatives has been so subverted by them.

No Clegg, surely no Coalition.

anotherbaldrick

[QUOTE=redux;43279568

The current system has served us well so far, they say. So it has - Conservative governments for most of the last century, from the votes of only 30 to 40% of the people.

.[/QUOTE]

Labour won in 2005 on 35% of the votes cast . At a guess that was about 21.35% of the electorate ? That means we got Mr Bumble on the choice of only one fifth of the eligible voters.

mark55man

if people can't be bothered to vote, I don't think you should take them off the figures (implyin gthey were against Labour) - if anything you should add them on (as they obviously don't mind) who wins - so what you should have said was

Labour won in 2005 on 35% of votes cast meaning >60% didn't mind them them (assuming 75% polling turn out - which I think was right maybe even a bit high) and only 40% actively wanted someone else

redux

Soubrette wrote: »

I think Dave Cameron might actually have shot himself in the foot on this one.

I can't see how Nick Clegg's position will remain tenable when one of the few concessions he managed to wring from the Conservatives has been so subverted by them.

No Clegg, surely no Coalition.

It would certainly possible, but maybe Cameron would try some deal with other parties.

But with the Conservatives taking part in this coalition, spending time saying how good it is, but now coming out with such vitriolic character assassination of their partners, any other party that Cameron approaches ought to see him coming and tell him to get lost.

The bind the Liberal Democrats are in is that if they resign from the government they would lose quite a few seats in an election, so meanwhile they have to put up with this abuse a bit longer.

Whether they might try doing a deal with Labour that could involve keeping going without an election, I'm not sure what precedent there might be for that being allowed. Cameron would presumably go to the Queen, and I don't know if he simply asks for an election, or whether she can ask Miliband or Clegg if they can try to form a government first; I think it's probably an election.

zagfles

redux wrote: »

It's become clear that to begin with Cameron and Osborne weren't taking a lot of notice of this, but then they started to worry about how close it might be, and the mud-slinging nature of the campaign is definitely down to them.

The current system has served us well so far, they say. So it has - Conservative governments for most of the last century, from the votes of only 30 to 40% of the people.

They're seeing a chance to stitch things up for years to come, which, given that the last election produced a Conservative + Lberal Democrat government rather than Labour + Liberal Democrat one by a margin of not much at all, might be rather unrepresentative.

This is stretching the coalition to the point of breaking, with the squeeze on the Liberal Democrats vote at the moment keeping them almost involuntarily stuck in there against their instincts, but it doesn't bode well for these 2 parties being able to keep on good terms with each other in the future.

The Tories aren't too worried about AV, which is why they offered a referendum on it in the coalition agreement. They don't want it, but it won't be too harmful to them. As per the analysis I posted earlier in this thread, AV wouldn't have cost them any of the elections they won in the 80s/90s, even the close 1992 one.

And with the rise of UKIP, and the LDs being deserted by their more Labour leaning voters, AV is probably worse for Labour than it is for the Tories.

redux

zagfles wrote: »

The Tories aren't too worried about AV, which is why they offered a referendum on it in the coalition agreement. They don't want it, but it won't be too harmful to them.

That was then, but this is now

If they weren't that worried, why did they suddenly wake up and launch the most irrational and mud-slinging political campaign in living memory?

anotherbaldrick

redux wrote: »

That was then, but this is now

If they weren't that worried, why did they suddenly wake up and launch the most irrational and mud-slinging political campaign in living memory?

I must have missed that ! Was it in the Sun ?

zagfles

redux wrote: »

That was then, but this is now

If they weren't that worried, why did they suddenly wake up and launch the most irrational and mud-slinging political campaign in living memory?

Is it? You get more irrational mud-slinging in the house of commons, especially at PMQs!

The referendum was always going to be a dilemma for the Tories, as their case against any electoral change was "it'll lead to more coalitions and the chaos/weak govt/backroom deals that brings" - ie they need to point out the flaws in the the current govt! It almost like they want to create some, temporarily at least, to show that coalitions are a bad thing:)