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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NyLonEd)
    "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.
    A compromise, even a miserable little one is better than no change whatsoever. This is our one chance, we HAVE a referendum, and why should we pass up the opportunity to improve the voting system? We vote no, then everyone says that 'voters have chosen first past the post' not 'voters have chosen electoral reform'. It's well known that many people want PR rather than AV, but we only get the ball rolling with a small change first. This builds towards STV - it's evolutionary and moves us a step closer to a proportional system. Moving towards preferential voting is half of the battle with STV - people could no longer claim it's complicated, unfair, or that it ruins one person, one vote (all untrue, btw) when choosing later between AV and STV. The same people that attacked AV will then be defending it, and PR has a much better chance one the old guard is broken.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom29whu)

    And to say that this is the biggest referendum in history is perhaps the overstatement of the century. Looking at the 2010 election if it was decided on an AV basis, Conservatives would have earned 22 less seats, Labour 10 less seats, and Liberals would have gained twenty-odd.
    How can we possible know how people would have voted had a different voting system been in place?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mbob)
    How can we possible know how people would have voted had a different voting system been in place?
    Polling companies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    sounds like someone's got a case of hyperbolitis
    Offline

    3
    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.
    What is the alternative to the FPTP system? I actually want to know
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Polling companies.
    I realise there are polling companies. But normal election polls use fairly large samples of people and apply empirical corrections based on past election results. With a (presumably small) poll asking people how they would have voted on AV we have no real data with which to compare the results, and hence to way of validating the methodology.

    Most of the people who were polled in 2010 would have had no idea about how AV works, and would have given little pre-thought to how they would vote under that system (they may not have even bothered looked at the policies of smaller parties because they wanted to vote for someone with a chance of winning). Following the referendum the AV system will be more widely understand, and so voting patterns will be difference. On top of that, parties may campaign in different ways (less of the “the Tories can’t win here so vote Lib Dem” arguments). Candidates might even suggest a second preference to their supporters.

    A real election under AV would take place under totally different conditions to any opinion poll. So my argument is that “predictions” of what would have happened if AV had been in place are pretty meaningless.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mbob)
    In realise there are polling companies. But normal election polls use fairly large samples of people and apply lots of empirical corrections based on past election results. With a (presumably small) poll asking people how they would have voted on AV we have no real data with which to compare the results, and hence to way of validating the methodology.
    No, of course we have no way to validate the methodology, but it's not that different from normal polling.

    Sample sizes are similar to normal polling, as are the correction methods for first=preference voting. It's just that each of those first-preferences has other preferences attached (from the polling) and from that we can calculate AV polling.

    Most of the people who were polled in 2010 would have had no idea about how AV works, and would have given little pre-thought to how they would vote under that system (they may not have even bothered looked at the policies of smaller parties because they wanted to vote for someone with a chance of winning). Following the referendum the AV system will be more widely understand, and so voting patterns will be difference. On top of that, parties may campaign in different ways (less of the “the Tories can’t win here so vote Lib Dem” arguments). Candidates might even suggest a second preference to their supporters.
    Of course, there were certain tactical elements at play which would reduce the effects of AV changing things, however, a pollster will merely ask the same thing that a ballot paper does, to rank the candidates in order of preference, and since that's the optimal solution (to represent your preferences truly under AV), then people doing it honestly and people doing it when they understand the system will be the same.

    A real election under AV would take place under totally different conditions to any opinion poll. So my argument is that “predictions” of what would have happened if AV had been in place are pretty meaningless.
    I think ther are parallels that can be drawn, and predictions that can be made from patterns - perhaps not to the same quantitative degree as some attempt to, but then that's just a central estimate.

    Since AV has the effect of stopping the splitting of the vote - we can say that since Labour and Lib Dem supporters were more aligned during the election, Labour would have done slightly better (as would the Lib Dems) at the expense of the Conservatives, while now it paints an opposite picture - where we see Tory and (remaining) Lib Dem voters more aligned, and the predictions of how AV would affect the result is that it would hurt Labour, somewhere in the region of 13 seats, and hand those to the Lib Dems.

    Certainly I don't think that we're as clueless as you like to suggest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Even if AV is implemented, and I doubt it will be, it will make little difference to MP's.

    They are all useless, lying, thieving scum, only in politics for the money.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Sample sizes are similar to normal polling, as are the correction methods for first=preference voting. It's just that each of those first-preferences has other preferences attached (from the polling) and from that we can calculate AV polling.
    Really? In the run up to an election there is an opinion poll every couple of days with several thousand participants. How many of those were asked to rank the candidates in order?
    Of course, there were certain tactical elements at play which would reduce the effects of AV changing things, however, a pollster will merely ask the same thing that a ballot paper does, to rank the candidates in order of preference, and since that's the optimal solution (to represent your preferences truly under AV), then people doing it honestly and people doing it when they understand the system will be the same.
    But my argument is that they won't. A FPTP poll that just asked people who they will vote for would get the result horribly wrong. They only get anything like the right answer because of the weightings they apply, which are based on previous election results. How do we know what weightings to apply to second and third preferences?

    I think there are parallels that can be drawn, and predictions that can be made from patterns - perhaps not to the same quantitative degree as some attempt to, but then that's just a central estimate.
    That's fair enough, but people quote these figures as if they were fact and use them to try to sway the argument on the referendum one way or the other. My argument is that we should take them with a very big pinch of salt, no-one really knows for sure what would happen.
    Since AV has the effect of stopping the splitting of the vote - we can say that since Labour and Lib Dem supporters were more aligned during the election, Labour would have done slightly better (as would the Lib Dems) at the expense of the Conservatives, while now it paints an opposite picture - where we see Tory and (remaining) Lib Dem voters more aligned, and the predictions of how AV would affect the result is that it would hurt Labour, somewhere in the region of 13 seats, and hand those to the Lib Dems.
    Sounds reasonable, but we don't know for sure. And trying to translate opinion poll results to seats won is surely very hard. Unless you have a seat by seat breakdown of voting intention (which would require an impractically large sample) you're reduced to making assumptions using variations on the uniform national swing. Again there are empirical models for doing this better, but they have been developed using data from previous elections - data we don't have for AV.

    I'm not an expert of polling and I may be wrong, but I'm very sceptical of the figures.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I've read some of the thread but I've not read every post.

    I respect that AV has its flaws but FPTP, in my opinion, is far more flawed. What I fear is that if the public votes NO we won't get another chance at voting reform in our lifetime.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    So...a system which looks to make it more likely for them to win will make them try harder?



    And AV will fix this how? Consider Australia.



    Ironic from someone who starts the thread with a hissy fit over not getting his way.



    This makes no sense whatsoever.



    I fail to see how AV will make MPs more accountable. 90% of safe seats with remain, some will become safer, and a couple more will become marginal. That's about it.



    Fair enough, but I think a bit more forethought is required before you stride in to a forum with tons of politics geeks
    Can I just point out I didn't start the thread

    Well I'll admit you're right, I'm pretty much a mouse fighting giants here as regards political knowledge goes. So I turned to my old friend twitter for some advice, and found these videos. I think they pretty much sum up what I was trying to say AND they're from a guy who knows what he's talking about. Hope you enjoy

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1606702
    Offline

    1
    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.
    AV isn't proportional, and the likelihood of minority parties getting into power is even less likely given you need 50% of the vote.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelykatana)
    Leave to where? Australia? The country with AV that are trying to get rid?
    Or one of them other countries with the same god damn voting system.

    I dont actually give a flying **** OP.
    What makes you think they are trying to get rid of it?
    They had a poll on it which showed the majority would favour a return to FPTP.
    But given the political and economic turmoil at the moment I think we shouldn't read too much into this.
    I'd think more of it if it was conducted when their economy had picked up.
    Also when the country start to trust their government after the controversy surrounding Julia Gillard's appointment and then re-election as PM.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do tell us with which flight so we can all come wish you farewell. You will be missed!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mbob)
    How can we possible know how people would have voted had a different voting system been in place?
    Probably should have listed my source, apologies-

    http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_jo...lij/gsq042.pdf

    Looks pretty legit
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom29whu)
    Probably should have listed my source, apologies-

    http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_jo...lij/gsq042.pdf

    Looks pretty legit
    Thanks, an interesting paper.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Advocacy of democracy nowadays can sound as dogmatic as religion.
    So can advocacy of scientific evidence.
    The difference between these two and religion of course is that they are both open to criticism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Right, so you think the most democratic system is you telling people which way to vote in a referendem?

    Personally I'm undecided on whether AV is a good idea or not yet. However I am almost certain of the fact that AV will result in more coalitions, seeing as you just said that it would stop the monopoly of Labour and the Conservatives.
    Statistically it is less likely than FPTP, as all countries using AV have had less coalitions than all countries using FPTP.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedRevolver)
    Personally, I kind of want this referendum not to happen. Why? Because it's a diktat by two parties not even properly elected by the current system, wasting millions of pounds, which could seriously be better spent else where, to do what? Have a system that is so marginally better than FPTP that it might as well not change.

    Proper proportional representation is needed.
    I wholly agree. This referendum is something that benefits no one. It stinks of realpolitik. For a PR man Cameron's doing a very poor job with his public image.
    Making the deepest cuts in history of this country, whilst spending billions on a miss-managed foreign military operation, and millions on a referendum in the same year that the cuts begin.
    Clegg should have held firm and demanded an open referendum.
    Presumably it was the threat of a second election that persuaded him.
    Offline

    18
    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.
    Only if over 50% of people want them in AT ALL. Which I would never want - but if that's democractic then so be it. You can't choose whether a voting system is fairer depending on who gets in - in fact the opposite is true.

    But the point being - the BNP will not get over 50% of votes (this is NOT PR), whereas ironically under FPTP you can get way under 50% as long as it's the biggest number.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.