STephen fry on why you should vote yes on the 5th of may Watch

4TSR
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
17
reply
A level Az
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
I want to say I'm voting yes but I'm afraid that huge sirens will go off and I'll end up on -50 points.
19
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Regardless of whether 'Yes' or 'No' is more justified (I'm on the fence), as much as I like Stephen I can't help but feel a little disappointed that he's using his fame and popularity to further a political cause. Charities are fine, but this seems like an abuse of his 'power'. He knows that him telling people to vote 'Yes' will make droves of his fans blindly follow him, whether they happen to understand what they're voting for or not.
24
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
I really don't like the way politicians line up celebs to get votes. What idiot votes for something because their fave celeb likes it?
3
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by Aj12)
I really don't like the way politicians line up celebs to get votes. What idiot votes for something because their fave celeb likes it?
The same idiots who listen to the crap arguments on the pamphlets posted through our doors.
11
reply
angrydanmarin
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
Well I've never liked Stephen Fry all that much. And although I can understand his appeal, it does seem like he's abusing his power. I thought it was an 'unwritten rule' for popular celebs/journalists not to do this kind of political thing?
0
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Captain Crash)
The same idiots who listen to the crap arguments on the pamphlets posted through our doors.
Well tbf, your signature is totally irresponsible and false.
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Why is Stephen Fry's opinion more valid than mine, because he's more famous than me?
reply
GQ.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
Say no to AV
15
reply
Chimaira
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Well tbf, your signature is totally irresponsible and false.
Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
0
reply
DeeDub
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Well tbf, your signature is totally irresponsible and false.
Well spotted. It assumes that four out of the 5 parties are the same (beer) which isn't the case in politics.

I think there is a case for electoral reform however am I yet to be convinced AV is the answer and as such will be voting NO. I don't think I have been provided with the information in order to understand the full effects of AV which leaves a large area in which the law of unintended consequences can get to work. As such I am plumping for the devil I know as I would consider the way we elect our government to be pretty important I'd rather it didn't get ****ed up because Nick Clegg put in a couple of good telly performances last year. This referendum is a sop the Lib Dems and not a serious attempt at electoral reform.
4
reply
4TSR
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Why is Stephen Fry's opinion more valid than mine, because he's more famous than me?
Yep. Unfortunately.

(Original post by Chimaira)
Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
Doesn't mean it's a valid argument - that particular example was coffee vs beer and so not fair as an example.
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Why is Stephen Fry's opinion more valid than mine, because he's more famous than me?
Much like it is fair that the Royals are superior to the rest of us commoners, it is fair that famous people apparently have a more valid opinion than us normals. We sadly create the system by which we live by :rolleyes:
2
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Chimaira)
Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
Well you're wrong then.

In Politics, there are no 4 identical candidates. The poster shows 4 identical pubs, all serving identical beer, in politics this does not exist.

This situation just does not exist - it is absurd. 70% of candidates may not vote for the winning candidate, however the poster implies that 70% voted for the same thing.. in politics, that 70% would be split amongst totally different candidates. The poster would be truthful if instead of 4 beers, it was 1 cider, 1 beer, 1 milkshake and 1 line of coke. The coffee would have won with 30% of the vote, and you would see that it was fair because the other 4 candidates all received less than 30%.

And which pub do you suppose should win then? Why should, say, the Red Lion win, when it only won 20%?

This poster is so infantile the designer should be embarrassed. It's as bad as anything the No2AV campaigners have designed.
reply
niall c
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by DeeDub)
Well spotted. It assumes that four out of the 5 parties are the same (beer) which isn't the case in politics.

I think there is a case for electoral reform however am I yet to be convinced AV is the answer and as such will be voting NO. I don't think I have been provided with the information in order to understand the full effects of AV which leaves a large area in which the law of unintended consequences can get to work. As such I am plumping for the devil I know as I would consider the way we elect our government to be pretty important I'd rather it didn't get ****ed up because Nick Clegg put in a couple of good telly performances last year. This referendum is a sop the Lib Dems and not a serious attempt at electoral reform.
The argument re beer would be that the left is split between Labour and the Lib Dems (fairly obvious if you look at voting trends for the past century; Labour's rise is proportional to the original Liberal Party's decline as the Conservatives stayed steady), and so in a sense the analogy holds: if all those that vote Lib Dem would prefer Labour to the Tories, just as your man at the pub would rather another pub than coffee, then AV is more appropriate. See this masterful piece: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/...ter-than-fptp/ . Clearly, this isn't necessarily the case - at the last election, many would have voted Tory before Labour purely on HR grounds - but the point stands.

Also, as for this 'celebrity' thing - the reason Stephen Fry is allowed to propogate his opinion is that, like Tim Gowers in the above blogpost, the man is bloody smart and has an educated opinion on the matter. The problem with celebrities 'abusing' their power comes not so much from the 'abuse' as when the average famous moron - say, Prince Charles - starts talking about something outside of his (narrow) area of expertise - as he has on homeopathy.

Finally, if anyone has a persuasive argument against voting yes on the 5th, I'd love to hear it; Gowers' piece and the atrocious arguments from the 'no' side ('one man, one vote?' Jesus Christ.) have me very much convinced in favour, presently.
2
reply
DeeDub
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by niall c)
Finally, if anyone has a persuasive argument against voting yes on the 5th, I'd love to hear it; Gowers' piece and the atrocious arguments from the 'no' side ('one man, one vote?' Jesus Christ.) have me very much convinced in favour, presently.
Lack of the examination of methods other than AV.
Insufficient impartial evidence as to the effects of AV.

I am not FPTP fanboy, but I would rather the status quo than an ill judged change.
0
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Well you're wrong then.

In Politics, there are no 4 identical candidates. The poster shows 4 identical pubs, all serving identical beer, in politics this does not exist.

This situation just does not exist - it is absurd. 70% of candidates may not vote for the winning candidate, however the poster implies that 70% voted for the same thing.. in politics, that 70% would be split amongst totally different candidates. The poster would be truthful if instead of 4 beers, it was 1 cider, 1 beer, 1 milkshake and 1 line of coke. The coffee would have won with 30% of the vote, and you would see that it was fair because the other 4 candidates all received less than 30%.

And which pub do you suppose should win then? Why should, say, the Red Lion win, when it only won 20%?

This poster is so infantile the designer should be embarrassed. It's as bad as anything the No2AV campaigners have designed.
You've kinda missed the main point of the ad - in real life we use AV all the time. It's a sensible, fair, simple and consensus seeking method of decision making. If we used FPTP we would get unfair bizzare decisions in these real life situations i.e. choosing coffee. However, it's ridiculous that the same system that would produce such an outcome is used for something as important as a government.

There is also a secondary point to the ad that you picked up. Broadly speaking, the top two politicians in an area would represent left or right wing. Though there are different parties and politicians, broadly speaking supporters of a given candidate would be more right or left wing.

To put this in the UK context, the single right wing party (or coffee) got 40% whilst the multiple left wing parties (beer) got in the region of 60%. I admit some lib dems may be more inclined to vote tory, but by and large supporters of left parties will support any left wing party (beer) over the tories (coffee) yet in FPTP this is the case.

The is the spoiler effect and is the largest problem with FPTP that AV solves.
0
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by DeeDub)
Insufficient impartial evidence as to the effects of AV.
How about Papua New Guinea? This is a traditionally violent and tribal country. When democracy was first introduced by Australia they adopted AV, which largely worked well with such a tribal society by forcing politicians to gain support across tribal lines.

When they gained independence from Australia, they adopted the FPTP system and it led to huge problems - divisive politics, corruption, negative and dirty campaigning, candidates getting elected on as little as 5% of the vote. Upon reversion to AV, these problems improved overnight.
1
reply
Ali1991
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by Captain Crash)
How about Papua New Guinea? This is a traditionally violent and tribal country. When democracy was first introduced by Australia they adopted AV, which largely worked well with such a tribal society by forcing politicians to gain support across tribal lines.

When they gained independence from Australia, they adopted the FPTP system and it led to huge problems - divisive politics, corruption, negative and dirty campaigning, candidates getting elected on as little as 5% of the vote. Upon reversion to AV, these problems improved overnight.
yes last thing we need is tribal warfare in the UK
0
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by Ali1991)
yes last thing we need is tribal warfare in the UK
My point is that AV has shown to decrease tribal and partisan politics. Or do you think UK politics isn't like that?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (162)
39.04%
No - but I will (22)
5.3%
No - I don't want to (30)
7.23%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (201)
48.43%

Watched Threads

View All