Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Commons Bar Mk IV watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    How long left?
    Done seven will do the other seven tomorrow/next day

    Taking slightly longer than I thought given some of the mistakes and weird data collecting
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So I was in my local town earlier today and there was a stand which was named "Conservatives saying no to AV.

    They gave our a leaflet which I have in front of me and the five reasons they give in their argument against the AV voting system are as follows:


    1) It's unfair. With first past the post (our current system), everybody gets one vote. But under AV supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would get their vote coutned many times while others would only be counted once.

    2) It doesn't work. Rather than the candidates with the most votes winning, under AV the person who finishes third could be elected.

    3) It's expensive. Calculating the results would be a long complicated process which could even require special counting machines - and it would cost the taxpayer millions

    4) It's discredited. Only 3 countries in the world use AV. Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea - and both Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it.

    5) No-one wants it. Even the "yes" campaigners don't want AV - they see it as a conveniant stepping stone to even more reforms.
    What do you all think of that?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    AV sucks | We shouldn't adopt AV | Most Australians hate it but there is no modd to get rid of it | One of those three countries is a dictatorship | Less proportional than FPTP | Lord Jenkins said it was disturbingly unfair.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ick-Clegg.html

    Why won't these pricks just leave the House of Lords alone! The House of Commons is a giant pile of crap. The House of Lords is a fantastic institution with genuine expertise and yet these ****ing *******s want to destroy it.


    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    So I was in my local town earlier today and there was a stand which was named "Conservatives saying no to AV.

    They gave our a leaflet which I have in front of me and the five reasons they give in their argument against the AV voting system are as follows:



    What do you all think of that?
    I have one of those leaflets yes its good stuff
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    So I was in my local town earlier today and there was a stand which was named "Conservatives saying no to AV.

    They gave our a leaflet which I have in front of me and the five reasons they give in their argument against the AV voting system are as follows:



    What do you all think of that?
    The monetary point is suspect, but the other points are legitimate.

    I'm still reasonably erring on the side of voting no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ick-Clegg.html

    Why won't these pricks just leave the House of Lords alone! The House of Commons is a giant pile of crap. The House of Lords is a fantastic institution with genuine expertise and yet these ****ing *******s want to destroy it.

    Yeah F***ing democracy! Always ruins everything!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Several points in that leaflet are quack. The candidate with the most votes (i.e. 50% over the redistributed ballots) wins the seat. That's the point. It means a Tory / Lib Dem / Labour MP has to have the support of the majority of his / her constituents not, as is the case in some areas now, barely 35% or so. The monetary point is nonsense too: it merely requires people counting to be more alert. I've run elections before that used AV and STV they take a bit longer to count but are no more onerous in their operation than FPTP. As for having equal votes. Bah. Is a vote for a party other than Labour in a seat where Labour commands 60% vote share really equal to one in a three-way marginal? No.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    Yeah F***ing democracy! Always ruins everything!
    So you would happily destroy a meritocractic House in favour of a democratic House is that a mirror image of the Commons, full of slimy easily bought politicians who will serve their own interests and not those of the public?

    You are so ideological that you will destroy a brilliantly functioning revising chamber for another House of Commons?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I have one of those leaflets yes its good stuff

    (Original post by paddy__power)
    The monetary point is suspect, but the other points are legitimate.

    I'm still reasonably erring on the side of voting no.
    It's raised some interesting points.
    Is there anyone who can defend the AV Vote on these points?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    So you would happily destroy a meritocractic House in favour of a democratic House is that a mirror image of the Commons, full of slimy easily bought politicians who will serve their own interests and not those of the public?
    Rather like now. For every Robert Winston there are tens of Prescotts, Heseltines, and Strathclydes.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    It's raised some interesting points.
    Is there anyone who can defend the AV Vote on these points?
    I could parrot the responses of the yes campaign but CBA lol.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Rather like now. For every Robert Winston there are tens of Prescotts, Heseltines, and Strathclydes.
    The Prime Ministers ability to create peers should be abolished. It should be done solely by the appointments commission and it should be done so on the basis of great service to their field of expertise be that law, medicine, business, finance, etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    The Prime Ministers ability to create peers should be abolished. It should be done solely by the appointments commission and it should be done so on the basis of great service to their field of expertise be that law, medicine, business, finance, etc
    Well there you go. The House of Lords isn't meritocratic at the moment. It has the potential to be meritocratic if we remove the politicians from it and have people there on the basis of contributions to other fields - including, by the way, trades unionists and representatives from non-professional jobs - but to declare it meritocratic and use that to denounce someone who considers democratic elections the way forward for the House of Lords is more than a little hokkum on your part.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Several points in that leaflet are quack. The candidate with the most votes (i.e. 50% over the redistributed ballots) wins the seat. That's the point. It means a Tory / Lib Dem / Labour MP has to have the support of the majority of his / her constituents not, as is the case in some areas now, barely 35% or so. The monetary point is nonsense too: it merely requires people counting to be more alert. I've run elections before that used AV and STV they take a bit longer to count but are no more onerous in their operation than FPTP. As for having equal votes. Bah. Is a vote for a party other than Labour in a seat where Labour commands 60% vote share really equal to one in a three-way marginal? No.
    Exactly. There is no point voting in my constituency, because the Tory candidate, Peter Lilley, will always win. I still do vote, but I don't expect it to make a difference.

    I got one of those No To AV leaflets. As I recall, it was largely a load of bull**** designed to win over those who don't really understand the issue, which irritated me. I've got no problem with people who are against AV, because sure, it's not perfect. There are good arguments against it. I just wish they'd use those arguments, rather than things like, "This money could be used to hire x doctors and teachers." Sure, it could, if it were in the NHS or education budget, which it isn't and if the government decided to hire some more doctors and teachers, which they may or may not do with the existing budget. It was never going to be used for those purposes.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    One of the annoying things about AV is that there are occasions where it would be better for your preferred candidate if you didn't show up and vote at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Rather like now. For every Robert Winston there are tens of Prescotts, Heseltines, and Strathclydes.
    Let's not forget the Mandelsons.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well there you go. The House of Lords isn't meritocratic at the moment. It has the potential to be meritocratic if we remove the politicians from it and have people there on the basis of contributions to other fields - including, by the way, trades unionists and representatives from non-professional jobs - but to declare it meritocratic and use that to denounce someone who considers democratic elections the way forward for the House of Lords is more than a little hokkum on your part.
    Save for the PM's appointments it is very meritocractic. On the whole, the House of Lords is a fantastic institution and doesn't require the sort of root and branch reform people often wrongly suggest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    So you would happily destroy a meritocractic House in favour of a democratic House is that a mirror image of the Commons, full of slimy easily bought politicians who will serve their own interests and not those of the public?

    You are so ideological that you will destroy a brilliantly functioning revising chamber for another House of Commons?
    Why is asking for democratic legitimacy 'ideological'?

    I find the current system where party loyalists and donors can be 'rewarded' with a seat (see Mandelson, Lord Ashcroft + Prezza) disgraceful. 'Expertise' is still found in the commons + I do see the case for putting experts in the Lords, thats why we should keep 10% unelected. However, it is madness that half of the people responsible for making our laws are completely unelected.

    I also think it is hypocritical for conservatives, the most ardent defenders of having an unelected 2nd chamber, are the most vehement critics of the unelected European commission. Both are unelected affronts to democracy, why should one be reformed and the other not?

    And on your point of 'it works fine, so why change it'. If we had an extremely effective benevolent dictatorship running the country, would you also employ that argument?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    Let's not forget the Mandelsons.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.