The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Aside - I'm quite amazed that no-one's mention DC's immigration speech and Cable's response on here today.

I'm sure that DC and Cable's disagreement is the fault of Gordon Brown...

[Bruce Rioja]

Aside - I'm quite amazed that no-one's mention DC's immigration speech and Cable's response on here today.

I'm sure that DC and Cable's disagreement is the fault of Gordon Brown...

He's just some bigot that used to be Labour!

[thebish]

Tory lies - as described by the excellent Ben Goldacre...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... statistics

[Bruce Rioja]

I stopped at http://www.guardian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks anyway.

[thebish]

I stopped at http://www.guardian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks anyway.

I'm surprised. Ben Goldacre would be be right up your street - have you not come across his work?

[Bruce Rioja]

I stopped at http://www.guardian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks anyway.

I'm surprised. Ben Goldacre would be be right up your street - have you not come across his work?

I haven't, Bish, no. Given your recommend I will give it a whirl, but I'm still not in the mood for...... well, anything just yet. I'm sure you understand.

[thebish]

I stopped at http://www.guardian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks anyway.

I'm surprised. Ben Goldacre would be be right up your street - have you not come across his work?

I haven't, Bish, no. Given your recommend I will give it a whirl, but I'm still not in the mood for...... well, anything just yet. I'm sure you understand.

he's most famous for this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben ... ag=bs0b-21

[Bruce Rioja]

So, Anyway. This AV looks alright, but it wouldn't be my first choice - Thrrrrum, tisssssh, fudderley-dumph!

We go to the polls the day after tomorrow and I still don't know enough about AV one way or t'other to be able to cast a vote either way.

One of my concerns has been allayed, and that is that under AV if you only want to vote for one candidate you still can. I thought that the voter might end up having to prioritise between the Trantric Flyers' representative and some nob that's on one over something and nothing.

So, people. Guidance and explanations sought. Are you in the 'Yes' or the 'No' camp - and why?

[BWFC_Insane]

So, Anyway. This AV looks alright, but it wouldn't be my first choice - Thrrrrum, tisssssh, fudderley-dumph!

We go to the polls the day after tomorrow and I still don't know enough about AV one way or t'other to be able to cast a vote either way.

One of my concerns has been allayed, and that is that under AV if you only want to vote for one candidate you still can. I thought that the voter might end up having to prioritise between the Trantric Flyers' representative and some nob that's on one over something and nothing.

So, people. Guidance and explanations sought. Are you in the 'Yes' or the 'No' camp - and why?

I'm in the same boat Bruce. I've heard a lot of analysis about who it would favour and who it wouldn't but not an awful lot about how it really works, how fair it actually would be and whether it would actually make the whole process more complex than it need be.

Give me a vote on PR and I'd be there at the front voting yes.

But AV seems like a compromise that nobody really has 100% faith in.

I don't really understand the appeal of voting for a second and third choice, does it not then only really matter for those folk who are "tactical voters". Other than that surely you decide who best represents you and vote for them?

Having said that the current system isn't perfect either and I think the complacency with which the Tories and Labour treat it means a shake up would be beneficial. Just not sure AV is "it"?

[thebish]

I'll be a YES.

AV is far from perfect, but you can only play the team they put out against you (etc...)

for me - the persuasive argument is that MPs will at least have some measure of indicated support (even if not FIRST choice) from over 50% of their constituents.

MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. Given that the majority of MPs currently have the indicated support of much less than 50% of their constituents - then this is a small step forwards.

I'll also be voting YES because I am pissed off that the NO camp has told me it is all too complicated for me to worry my pretty little head about - how could I possibly get the hangs of ranking 3 candidates? my head will probably explode with the sheer effort. (etc.)

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll be a YES.

AV is far from perfect, but you can only play the team they put out against you (etc...)

for me - the persuasive argument is that MPs will at least have some measure of indicated support (even if not FIRST choice) from over 50% of their constituents.

MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. Given that the majority of MPs currently have the indicated support of much less than 50% of their constituents - then this is a small step forwards.

I'll also be voting YES because I am pissed off that the NO camp has told me it is all too complicated for me to worry my pretty little head about - how could I possibly get the hangs of ranking 3 candidates? my head will probably explode with the sheer effort. (etc.)

Bish thats fine for you, but take your average usually fairly poorly informed voter, how will they use their 2nd and third options? For a lot of people they find it hard to decide who their one vote should go to, let alone deciding three.

And quite frankly there will be a lot of people who will struggle to understand an AV system, and understand how to rank the three candidates. Its making a system more complex than it needs to be.

I'm torn between wanting change, and thinking this is just not the change we want. You're right that the ridiculous "No" campaign makes me want to vote yes. But the fact that what we really need is a proper representation across all votes cast, not some half assed attempt that mildly favours the condem coalition over anyone else!

[thebish]

I'll be a YES.

AV is far from perfect, but you can only play the team they put out against you (etc...)

for me - the persuasive argument is that MPs will at least have some measure of indicated support (even if not FIRST choice) from over 50% of their constituents.

MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. Given that the majority of MPs currently have the indicated support of much less than 50% of their constituents - then this is a small step forwards.

I'll also be voting YES because I am pissed off that the NO camp has told me it is all too complicated for me to worry my pretty little head about - how could I possibly get the hangs of ranking 3 candidates? my head will probably explode with the sheer effort. (etc.)

Bish thats fine for you, but take your average usually fairly poorly informed voter, how will they use their 2nd and third options? For a lot of people they find it hard to decide who their one vote should go to, let alone deciding three.

And quite frankly there will be a lot of people who will struggle to understand an AV system, and understand how to rank the three candidates. Its making a system more complex than it needs to be.

I'm torn between wanting change, and thinking this is just not the change we want. You're right that the ridiculous "No" campaign makes me want to vote yes. But the fact that what we really need is a proper representation across all votes cast, not some half assed attempt that mildly favours the condem coalition over anyone else!

anyone can understand ranking in order of preference - really, they can. Most popular TV game show formats are 1000 times more complicated than AV.

as for the fact it is a half-assed attempt - indeed it is - but don't expect ever to get anything better if the there is a NO vote - because from then on it will always be said - we asked the voters if they wanted to change and they said no. It is a step in the right direction - one that, if taken, will give voters the confidence to take further steps if needed in the future.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll be a YES.

AV is far from perfect, but you can only play the team they put out against you (etc...)

for me - the persuasive argument is that MPs will at least have some measure of indicated support (even if not FIRST choice) from over 50% of their constituents.

MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. Given that the majority of MPs currently have the indicated support of much less than 50% of their constituents - then this is a small step forwards.

I'll also be voting YES because I am pissed off that the NO camp has told me it is all too complicated for me to worry my pretty little head about - how could I possibly get the hangs of ranking 3 candidates? my head will probably explode with the sheer effort. (etc.)

Bish thats fine for you, but take your average usually fairly poorly informed voter, how will they use their 2nd and third options? For a lot of people they find it hard to decide who their one vote should go to, let alone deciding three.

And quite frankly there will be a lot of people who will struggle to understand an AV system, and understand how to rank the three candidates. Its making a system more complex than it needs to be.

I'm torn between wanting change, and thinking this is just not the change we want. You're right that the ridiculous "No" campaign makes me want to vote yes. But the fact that what we really need is a proper representation across all votes cast, not some half assed attempt that mildly favours the condem coalition over anyone else!

anyone can understand ranking in order of preference - really, they can. Most popular TV game show formats are 1000 times more complicated than AV.

as for the fact it is a half-assed attempt - indeed it is - but don't expect ever to get anything better if the there is a NO vote - because from then on it will always be said - we asked the voters if they wanted to change and they said no. It is a step in the right direction - one that, if taken, will give voters the confidence to take further steps if needed in the future.

Bish I've worked with young people in the past who most definitely would not understand ranking the candidates. As ridiculous as it may sound they just about manage to put a cross in a box, having to pick three and number the choices would be much more difficult. These are NOT people with obvious disability either. People who have not had a good education or have learning difficulties.

I know it sounds silly, and I know a lot of people WILL understand but walk into Bolton Town centre with a list of famous people and ask folk to rank em one to three in order of favourite and I bet you'll find some who can't or do it incorrectly.

Ask em to pick their single favourite and I suspect more will be able to.

[Bruce Rioja]

I know it sounds silly, and I know a lot of people WILL understand but walk into Bolton Town centre with a list of famous people and ask folk to rank em one to three in order of favourite and I bet you'll find some who can't or do it incorrectly.

Ask em to pick their single favourite and I suspect more will be able to.

Ah, but this goes right to the heart of the 'my fear being allayed' bit. It isn't mandatory that people pick and rank candidates - they still have the right to select their favourite and ignore the rest.

That said, am I correct in thinking that AV is a system whereby the candidate who gets the most first-choice votes is not necessarily the candidate who ends up being elected?

[superjohnmcginlay]

I know it sounds silly, and I know a lot of people WILL understand but walk into Bolton Town centre with a list of famous people and ask folk to rank em one to three in order of favourite and I bet you'll find some who can't or do it incorrectly.

Ask em to pick their single favourite and I suspect more will be able to.

Ah, but this goes right to the heart of the 'my fear being allayed' bit. It isn't mandatory that people pick and rank candidates - they still have the right to select their favourite and ignore the rest.

That said, am I correct in thinking that AV is a system whereby the candidate who gets the most first-choice votes is not necessarily the candidate who ends up being elected?

Apparently. Doesn't sound right does it? Still undecided myself.

[BWFC_Insane]

T'other thing that puts me off AV is the thought of the first general election where AV existed. Can you imagine the tediosity of weeks and weeks of speculation of how AV would affect things and whether voters would vote tactically or noit, only to find out the Tories have won without an overall majority and are forced to form an alliance with the Welsh Knitting and Basket Weaving Party?

[thebish]

....only to find out the Tories have won without an overall majority and are forced to form an alliance with the Welsh Knitting and Basket Weaving Party?

isn't that what happened last time round under the FPTP system?

[BWFC_Insane]

....only to find out the Tories have won without an overall majority and are forced to form an alliance with the Welsh Knitting and Basket Weaving Party?

isn't that what happened last time round under the FPTP system?

Indeed. That being my point. I'm not sure we'd be any better off.

[thebish]

the other advantage of the AV system is that I can vote with "heart" and "head"

in other words - if, locally, I actually want the Labour candidate to win - but know that she hasn't got a cat-in-hell's chance - I can actually vote for her as first choice (heart) - and THEN vote for the (head) candidate that I know has got the best chance of ousting the tories...

as Bruce points out - if I want to - I can still treat it as FPTP - and only vote for one candidate - BUT - then, if I choose, I can vote in a more defined way - in other words, I have more choice - which I like.

can it really be right for the majority of MPs to have had more than 50% of their constituents voting against them? ie - for MOST currently sitting MPs, MOST of their constituents didn't want them.

[BWFC_Insane]

the other advantage of the AV system is that I can vote with "heart" and "head"

in other words - if, locally, I actually want the Labour candidate to win - but know that she hasn't got a cat-in-hell's chance - I can actually vote for her as first choice (heart) - and THEN vote for the (head) candidate that I know has got the best chance of ousting the tories...

as Bruce points out - if I want to - I can still treat it as FPTP - and only vote for one candidate - BUT - then, if I choose, I can vote in a more defined way - in other words, I have more choice - which I like.

can it really be right for the majority of MPs to have had more than 50% of their constituents voting against them? ie - for MOST currently sitting MPs, MOST of their constituents didn't want them.

Aye but Bish, if the choices were (hypothetically)

Labour
Lib Dem
Tory
BNP

What you going to do then? Use your one vote accepting that others will use a second and third and effectively have "more of a say" than you.

Or use all three and vote for the lesser of the evils?

I'm really not convinced by this at all. What you've just described is my worst fear. That elections become a tactical thing that only 10% of the population truly understand the implication of their votes.

Right now its fairly simple in that you vote for the party you want to run the country (in most cases thats how folk vote, lets not kid ourselves). Introduce tictacs and head vs heart, and really you've got a lot of fairly uninterested folk who are already a bit confused by it all, being even more confused as to whether they should vote Lib Dem as second choice, or not at all, or give it to the socialist workers party because they can't win and then what about the third vote, oh sod it I'll just vote once. Then all of a sudden you could have an election decided by a minority of second and third votes!