Forum
AV (Alternative Voting)
Created 3rd May 2011 @ 22:50
Locked Pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Enlighten me: It’s basically another form of the “proportional voting” (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proporzwahl sadly no EN article, use translator) we Swiss have been using for 100 years to allocate seats for different parties?
and you seriously discuss about this? :O
Last edited by Waebi,
Quoted from Waebi
Enlighten me: It’s basically another form of the “proportional voting” (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proporzwahl sadly no EN article, use translator) we Swiss have been using for 100 years to allocate seats for different parties?
and you seriously discuss about this? :O
It’s similar, but not indentical.
As for why it needs to be discussed — some of our politicians are very reluctant to have to work harder for their tenure. The ‘no’ campaign has spread a multitude of lies, which, whilst poorly constructed, have been swallowed up by the masses. They make financial claims which don’t make sense when you look at them correctly. They imply things about AV which are not true. It’s really quite sickening that something so misleading is being part-funded by the Electoral Commission.
This is one of their latest through-the-door pamphlets, almost every sentence is a lie, fabrication, or misappropriation of the truth: http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&hd=1
In reality if AV had been in place in the last general election labour would have won because most of those who voted lib dem would have probably also put labour as their second choice. Of course that’s a problem for conservatives who essentially took advantage of FPTP in the last election and they’re not too keen on letting a new voting system be put in place hence they spam propaganda and hope for the best.
AV/PR is a “least worst” system whereby mean of peoples least disliked candidate gets more votes than they should reasonably get.
It’s just another libdem/hipsterstudents policy because it would benefit them the most. Conservative and Labour can be seen as opposites where the Lib Dems can be seen to both of them as a less bad option, ie a Conservative supporter would rather see a Lib Dem than a Labour seat so they put down 1 next to Conservative and 2 next to Lib Dem as a kind of insurance policy against a Labour seat. Labour voters would put a 1 down next to Labour and a 2 next to Lib Dem for the same reason, this means Lib Dem get a DISPROPORTIONATE number of votes/influence as they’re not anybodies party of choice (for the sake of this example), they’re just the least worst option to everybody.
Quoted from Tobyy
AV/PR is a “least worst” system whereby mean of peoples least disliked candidate gets more votes than they should reasonably get.
It’s just another libdem/hipsterstudents policy because it would benefit them the most. Conservative and Labour can be seen as opposites where the Lib Dems can be seen to both of them as a less bad option, ie a Conservative supporter would rather see a Lib Dem than a Labour seat so they put down 1 next to Conservative and 2 next to Lib Dem as a kind of insurance policy against a Labour seat. Labour voters would put a 1 down next to Labour and a 2 next to Lib Dem for the same reason, this means Lib Dem get a DISPROPORTIONATE number of votes/influence as they’re not anybodies party of choice (for the sake of this example), they’re just the least worst option to everybody.
I hope you don’t really believe this crap. I’m not even a Lib Dem supporter, but sheesh, this is one of the most ill conceived arguments I’ve heard.
The least bad = the most good. Your argument doesn’t make any sense at all. I truly hope you don’t believe there is some magical system that will make everything amazing… don’t reject a far superior system just because it doesn’t tuck you in at night and spawn unicorns in every direction.
Go read this: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/04/do-av-votes-count-more-than-once.html
Last edited by octochris,
That pub vs coffee analogy doesnt really work because when you vote for a party its not like some of them do the same thing, but just with a different name.
Quoted from Wabbeh
That pub vs coffee analogy doesnt really work because when you vote for a party its not like some of them do the same thing, but just with a different name.
Are you unable to extract simple information from a concept?
The coffee/pub analogy works fine as it represents POLICIES.
Last edited by octochris,
Quoted from octochris
[…]
Are you truly an idiot or are you unable to extract simple information from a concept?
The coffee/pub analogy works fine as it represents POLICIES.
Whilst some parties may have common policies, no 2 parties have the exact same manifesto – and one votes for the parties, not the policies. (by this I mean you can’t pic n mix ood policies)
Last edited by Wabbeh,
Quoted from Wabbeh
one votes for the parties, not the policies.
Okay, so you are an idiot.
Quoted from octochris
[…]
Okay, so you are an idiot.
Clarified in an edit before I even saw your post.
Are you ignorant enough to think that there is not a great deal of overlap between a great number of parties?
I will be voting AV tomorrow but not because I want AV. Av is just a cheep replacement to first past the post, both work but have flaws. The reason I will be voting AV is its a slightly better option, but I want my vote to go to use by saying “yes, I dont want first past the post, I want a new voting system” and yes, I feel we should have a look into what we can use instead of the goverment saying “AV or nothing”
the point of the pub/coffee thing is that under FPTP the coffee wins despite the fact that a full 70% of people involved don’t want coffee, that’s it.
I will be voting AV because I’m not a cunt
Locked Pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
content rss