Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If we vote no in the referendum, I am leaving the UK Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    It's highly unlikely the BNP will ever be elected under AV. Most people will put every single party other than the BNP as their preference than the BNP. It's called common sense, use it.
    Did you come on your period the moment you entered this thread? I'm not saying that the BNP would ever be the overall winning party. I just implied that it could potentially allow them a louder voice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    That can also be a downside. Proportional systems like AV could potentially allow not only marginal parties into Parliament, but extremist parties, like the BNP and or others.
    Although, that's not true, because to do that the BNP or other extremist party wold have to get 50% of the vote in what is essentially a run-off with another party. The only way people will get into Parliament is if the majority of people of that constituency want them there.

    Indeed, if anything it makes it less likely, as they can't sneak in as the vote is split between other parties.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Did you come on your period the moment you entered this thread? I'm not saying that the BNP would ever be the overall winning party. I just implied that it could potentially allow them a louder voice.
    So what if it allows them a louder voice? If it means their 'policies' can be scrutinised in public then all the better. This will avoid being driven underground, which would be a much more dangerous force like when they were the National Front, which we are beginning to see with the EDF. If people hear how ridiculous their policies actually are they will lose any 'mass' appeal.

    I think to use the extremist card to say No to AV is ridiculous, if we constantly tiptoe around extremists, avoiding any political reform then they are already influencing the agenda and having a "louder voice" than they deserve.

    EDIT: Of course, as many people have pointed out, as AV is a majoritarian system it means it is less likely that a BNP candidate could be elected, as they would have to receive 50% of the vote, whereas in a close fought FPTP election if there was a 3/4 way vote split the BNP could edge ahead, with a determined unit of voters, and get elected (as seen in many local elections, using FPTP)

    This article is quite interesting for anyone interested: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandeve...esearcher_says
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It depends on what you consider fair, though. Lord Jenkins and Lord Owen for a start, both avid pro-PR people, decried AV strongly as being extremely erratic and unpredictable, and can give less fair results than FPTP.

    Speaking as someone agnostic on adopting PR, I would rather retain FPTP than go into the potential dog's dinner that AV is.
    Lies. Lord Jenkins said that there were many advantages to AV over FPTP, but since it shared some of the downsides such as a lack of proportionality that it wouldn't be his preferred choice for voting reform. However, the choice we have is between AV and FPTP, if we're going to quote Lord Jenkins:

    81. The simplest change would be from FPTP to the Alternative Vote (henceforth referred to as AV). This meets several of our four criteria. It would fully maintain the link between MPs and a single geographical constituency. It would increase voter choice in the sense that it would enable voters to express their second and sometimes third or fourth preferences, and thus free them from a bifurcating choice between realistic and ideological commitment or, as it sometimes is called, voting tactically. There is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities. This is a formidable list of assets, particularly in the context of our terms of reference. And there are at least two further ones. AV would involve no change of constituency boundaries, and could thus be implemented from the moment that Parliament accepted a positive vote in a referendum. It would also virtually ensure that each MP commanded at least majority acquiescence within his constituency, which is far from being the case under FPTP, where as we have seen nearly a half of members have more opponents than supporters, and, exceptionally, a member can be elected (as in Inverness in 1992) with as little as 26% of the vote.
    Indeed, Jenkins in his report recommends AV to elect the majority of seats, with a top-up for further proportionality. If FPTP was so much better - why did he not recommend FPTP with top-up seats?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bella Occhi)
    So would the BNP.

    To the neg: the BNP getting more seats would be a bad thing :mad:
    I wasn't the neg, but the BNP would have no more chance of getting seats under AV. To do so they would have to get 50% of the vote in any given constituency, it is less likely since they cannot sneak in where the vote has been split other ways.

    If AV was good for the BNP, why are they campaigning for a NO vote?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    I'm not saying that the BNP would ever be the overall winning party. I just implied that it could potentially allow them a louder voice.
    If they were to get a louder voice - which is highly unlikely - but regardless, if that's how people want to vote, that's called democracy. Campaigning against democratisation on the basis of partisan elimination is called fascism. Don't get me wrong, as someone who comes from a Muslim family with a Bangladeshi background, the BNP are by no means my favourite bunch of people, but they have as much a right to exist and contest a democratic election as the green party or any other party.

    However, the point I was making is that the notion that 'AV is bad because it gives the BNP a louder voice' is one that only a fool would make because it's not only untrue, but immoral.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vinchenko)
    Really? Bigger than women getting the vote, say....? To be perfectly honest, neither system is truly representative of people's views. I dislike AV because if you vote for say 3 unpopular candidates with no chance, your 4th choice still carries the same weight in the final tally as someone who votes for a more popular candidate as their first choice! I would much prefer a system where you rank candidates in order of how much you like them, and then your first choice gets a certain number of points, your second half that and so on....I'm not entirely sure about how the distribution of points ought to be between first and second choice and so on, but you get the idea. This would be very complicated in practice though, so FPTP would be much simpler and easier to understand (one person one vote), and I will CERTAINLY be voting NO come May 5th!
    But instead we have a system where people sometimes put down their 3rd or 4th preference as their first because they feel the need to tactically vote to keep someone out. So this already happens, but let us consider what it actually means.

    It means that your vote is counted as if the other candidates weren't standing. Libertarian candidates don't stand in my area, but I still vote - I'm therefore not voting for my first choice anyway, and then I tactically vote - so I'm voting for my 3rd under FPTP, and that counts the same as someone's first. All it does is reduce the number of candidates standing (theoretically) by removing the least popular until someone has a majority. It makes little change to people's 3rd preferences being counted as their first, except that people actually have a chance to represent their first without it damaging their political wants (and surely democracy should be aligning political wants with the voting system?).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Lies. Lord Jenkins said that there were many advantages to AV over FPTP, but since it shared some of the downsides such as a lack of proportionality that it wouldn't be his preferred choice for voting reform. However, the choice we have is between AV and FPTP, if we're going to quote Lord Jenkins:

    Indeed, Jenkins in his report recommends AV to elect the majority of seats, with a top-up for further proportionality. If FPTP was so much better - why did he not recommend FPTP with top-up seats?
    Lord Jenkins said exactly that - AV on its own was unpredictable, erratic, and unfair; top-up in the form of AV+ would offset this by rectifying the worst errors.

    That's what he said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    I'm proper British. Born and raised in Manchester and though I would never leave but if the people of Britain vote no on what is the biggest democratic push in history, then I will leave. I will no longer identify with the people of Britain, my own kind. This referendum is the biggest political change in history so if you do not understand it but decided to vote no because you know the Lib's want it, then you deserve to be shot down. The FPTP system that we have now allows for the monopoly of Cons and Labour to consistently come first and second. This means that they know they can put piece of **** candidates like ex mp Howard Flight without fear of losing. BTW he's the one who likened the working classes to animals "breding". So next time you have an expenses scandal and the MP still retains his/her seat, remember it was your fault for saying no.
    How is this the biggest change in our history? Seriously? Great Reform Act? Secret ballot? AV doesn't produce particularly fair results (sometimes it can produce LESS proportional outcomes than FPTP) and doesn't break two-party monopolies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    And we should care why exactly?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Lord Jenkins said exactly that - AV on its own was unpredictable, erratic, and unfair; top-up in the form of AV+ would offset this by rectifying the worst errors.

    That's what he said.
    He went onto to say in his report that it shared some of the pitfalls of FPTP, but did not mention any that FPTP did not have. He argued against it on the fact that it didn't correct for proportionality and thus didn't correct the unfairness already inherent in the FPTP system.

    It's quite clear from the basis of his report that he sees AV as considerably superior to FPTP, but not the best solution of them all - which is something I'd go along with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If the result was no, I'd be tempted to move elsewhere in the future, if not straight away. If we vote no then I am stuck with having no voice for the rest of my life - because there will be no (or very little) democracy. It will either be Labour or Conservatives forever. Over and over again. And I don't want either. Therefore if I want to live in a democratic country I would have to move elsewhere.

    Plus OP is right - the country is so apathetic and right-wing...not a desirable prospect...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    He went onto to say in his report that it shared some of the pitfalls of FPTP, but did not mention any that FPTP did not have. He argued against it on the fact that it didn't correct for proportionality and thus didn't correct the unfairness already inherent in the FPTP system.

    It's quite clear from the basis of his report that he sees AV as considerably superior to FPTP, but not the best solution of them all - which is something I'd go along with.
    I think the most positive view you can glean from his report is that he think it has some advantages (i.e. the ranked voting method), but is unacceptably unfair and (in your own quote) will make even larger majorities. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and certainly enough for me to think it's a system not worth touching.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I think the most positive view you can glean from his report is that he think it has some advantages (i.e. the ranked voting method), but is unacceptably unfair and (in your own quote) will make even larger majorities. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and certainly enough for me to think it's a system not worth touching.
    FPTP is also a system not worth touching, though, and that's what the choice is with. You need to stop comparing it to a nirvana voting system.

    It may lead to larger majorities and indeed would have in 1997, but equally would have meant smaller ones in other years too - the point is that it's neutral with FPTP on proportionality (and that's where the unfairness comes in, something that's also inherent in FPTP).

    The disadvantages are shared, the advantages are unique, why keep the system with all the downsides and none of the upsides of AV? I mean really - instead of merely pointing out that AV is not perfect, can you really show it to be worse than FPTP?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Stop trying to endorse the no vote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    FPTP is also a system not worth touching, though, and that's what the choice is with. You need to stop comparing it to a nirvana voting system.

    It may lead to larger majorities and indeed would have in 1997, but equally would have meant smaller ones in other years too - the point is that it's neutral with FPTP on proportionality (and that's where the unfairness comes in, something that's also inherent in FPTP).

    The disadvantages are shared, the advantages are unique, why keep the system with all the downsides and none of the upsides of AV? I mean really - instead of merely pointing out that AV is not perfect, can you really show it to be worse than FPTP?
    Insofar as I believe it will lead to a return to a two-party system, like in Australia, I can believe it to be worse than FPTP. Admittedly not much worse. I believe however that PR is more likely to be achieved via FPTP than via AV.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Insofar as I believe it will lead to a return to a two-party system, like in Australia, I can believe it to be worse than FPTP. Admittedly not much worse. I believe however that PR is more likely to be achieved via FPTP than via AV.
    This is despite the fact that third-party representation has gone up in every simulation under AV since second preference polling was started in 1983?

    In addition, if we vote No in the referendum, the opponents of political reform will merely dress up all the same arguments against PR when that time comes, if we get AV, many people will push for PR, and indeed the old guard that has interests in protecting FPTP will no longer be able to do so. Indeed, the electoral reform society who's aim is PR are campaigning for a Yes vote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    This is despite the fact that third-party representation has gone up in every simulation under AV since second preference polling was started in 1983?
    In the long run, I think third party representation in Parliament will shrink under AV, despite an increase in third party votes, because their second/third/fourth preferences will benefit the top two most of the time. Australia is a demonstration of this, as the House is by and large two-party, but the PR Senate is quite a plurality of parties.

    In addition, if we vote No in the referendum, the opponents of political reform will merely dress up all the same arguments against PR when that time comes, if we get AV, many people will push for PR, and indeed the old guard that has interests in protecting FPTP will no longer be able to do so.
    I have heard this before, but I think if the LDs remain in a position whereby they can strongarm the other two into offering another referendum eventually, then we will get PR; however under AV I think the third parties will lose their prominent position and we'll be stuck with it as the Tories and Labour see that it works in their favour.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    In the long run, I think third party representation in Parliament will shrink under AV, despite an increase in third party votes, because their second/third/fourth preferences will benefit the top two most of the time. Australia is a demonstration of this, as the House is by and large two-party, but the PR Senate is quite a plurality of parties.
    Australia never had a large third-party before 1919 when it adopted AV and hasn't has one since. Indeed, the third party hasn't got 20% since 1903, 16 years before the adoption of AV - while in the UK, the Lib Dems have breached the 20% threshold for the past 2 elections. What you are forgetting is that although the second preference of the third-party go to one of the larger two-parties, it is likely that both of the second preferences of the two larger parties will go to the Lib Dems (ignoring smaller parties which will inevitably be knocked out).

    I have heard this before, but I think if the LDs remain in a position whereby they can strongarm the other two into offering another referendum eventually, then we will get PR; however under AV I think the third parties will lose their prominent position and we'll be stuck with it as the Tories and Labour see that it works in their favour.
    Will they though? The Lib Dems are incredibly unpopular at the moment, and are getting all the bad press from the coaltion and none of the good press. I can't see them doing well enough to force a coalition in the near future (no matter which voting system we're using) and thus I don't see another referendum on the horizon. Certainly, a yes vote keeps electoral reform on the agenda, rather than allowing the line that 'voters have rejected electoral reform'. The third party in Britain has been squeezed and squeezed, it receives less than 10% of seats, for over 20% of the vote, AV can only improve that standing, whomever the third-party is in the future, by stopping the inherent advantages the top two parties have under FPTP.

    Tactical voting has helped the Lib Dems, especially form their postion of the 80s, where the % of the vote was higher than the number of seats, but we can eliminate the need for any tactical voting through AV.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    This referendum is the biggest political change in history so if you do not understand it but decided to vote no because you know the Lib's want it, then you deserve to be shot down.
    "Biggest" doesn't mean best. Nobody wants AV, it is a little compromise. If you do vote yes do you really think we'll be allowed another referendum in a few years to change it to the system that would be the fairest of them all?? Of course not, they'll just hit us with "You can't change things whenever you like just because the current system is no longer in favour" or something of the like. The best way is to vote No in May and then Lobby for a bigger, more substantial and meaningful electoral change in a few years.

    But hey, go for it, leave. You shan't be missed with your terrible grasp on politics, grammar and lack of tangible and intelligent arguments for your case.

    Farewell, young Mancunian.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.