Vote Yes on 5th May

[Heart108]

I was delighted to see Lib Dem Councillor Jonathan Steele and ( I think) a Labour counterpart campaigning outside the Co Op on Saturday morning in Lordship Lane.

The 'no' vote campaign has been heavily underwritten by the Conservatives but according to today's Guardian the 'Yes' vote have reduced the lead to 10 points.

I sincerely hope enlightened East Dulwich will support the YES campaign

H

PS I am posting as a normal unaffiliated east dulwich resident who believes this to be a legitimate issue for debate

[Huguenot]

There's a thread in the Drawing Room on this subject.

It demonstrates the dishonesty and manipulation that supports the 'No' campaign, and is allowing minority right wingers to control an essentially socially minded nation.

Vote 'Yes' to give democracy a chance.

[Marmora Man]

It demonstrates the dishonesty and manipulation that supports the 'No' campaign, and is allowing minority right wingers to control an essentially socially minded nation.

Who are these minority right wingers that are in control? In the last 14 years UK has had a New Labour administration followed by a coalition administration of a year's standing. Prior to that there was the 5 year John Major led conservative administration which was essentially ineffectual. So in the last 20 years the majority have been left of centre led.

As for dishonesty - the Yes vote claim AV will make MPs work harder and not fiddle expenses and will be fairer. None of these claims is verifiable or even testable. The NO vote claims FPTP is simpler and less costly. Both are verifiable and testable.

PS: Some Yes to AV supporters even claim it would have avoided slavery - which is simply laughable.

[MrBen]

Is there truth that AV is currently only used in three nations worldwide; Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea? And that Australia is looking to drop the system?

[*Bob*]

uuugghhh!

My brain is simply incapable of understanding how this works. "List candidates in order of preference"? I mean - wtf?!

Seriously. And if I (BA Hons, knight of the realm etc) can't manage it, how it poor Terry from Plumstead going to cope with the intricacies of listing candidates in order of preference?

[edcam]

Nobody has provided a cogent argument as to why voting YES would be beneficial. I'm voting NO and await some fair electoral reform which makes sense to the public.

[*Bob*]

Terry. Mate. Let me see if I can help you out with this one.

Let's say you're at home and your watching the darts, or maybe the snooker, or whatever it is you people watch. You're at home - and you fancy a bit of chocolate. You send TheWife down to the shop to get some. But (being the Co-Op) you're not sure if they'll have Galaxy.

So - now listen carefully - what you do is list the chocolate bars you'd prefer to have in order of preference. Geddit?

Pay no heed to those who claim that (due to a peculiar alignment of the planets coupled with a prevailing north-westerly) there's a slim possibility that - instead of a chocolate bar of your choosing - you might end-up with Rose West.

[ratty]

My suspicion is that this is the only time in our lifetime that we will get to vote to change this. A yes vote for progressive politics!

[Huguenot]

You've already voted using AV in you vote for the London Mayor, so it's obviously not too difficult to grasp. Anyone who tells you it is, is insulting your intelligence. No surprise from the Tories to do that. They've already stolen your money and given it to their big city mates, now they're happy to steal your opportunity for fair government.

The main political parties use AV for their own elections. If they thought it was bad they wouldn't use it. If they're pretending 'no to AV' now they must be lying to you about their reasons.

If you vote 'No' now edcam, and you'll never see electoral reform in your lifetime. You'll be waiting until you're dead. The Tories know that, but they're not going to tell you.

Reasons to vote 'Yes'.

Minority government isn't democracy - the tories are currently running the country with only 35% of the vote. That means that 65% did not want them. Only 1 in 3 politicians actually got their seat with a majority. That's a massive fraud on the electorate.

Be heard - Under AV MPs need to gain the support of 50% or more of the vote, ensuring they listen harder to their constituents, and do more to represent their views.

Expand voter choice - currently fears of 'splitting' the FPTP vote means voters are pressurised into a two party state. AV means that you can consider a larger variety of left or right wing candidates whilst using your preference to ensure that you haven't wasted the vote if your primary candidate doesn't earn enough support.

Vote honestly - AV means that you don't have to 'guess' what other people in your ward are doing with their vote in order to vote tactically. You can choose the candidates you really want to win in order of preference.

Stop party machinations from destroying voter freedom - currently your candidate isn't chosen by you, it's chosen by your party's selection process, effectively leaving you with NO choice. NO choice means no accountability and no democracy.

Limit extremism - because extremist parties don't need a majority under FPTP they know they can sneak into power. That's why the BNP is voting against the alternative vote.

Generate mature politics - when politicians needs to find a compromise to win a majority, they start listening to their voters instead of slinging mud at each other in some sort of pathetic playground stunt.

As you can see none of those reasons is the bullshit continually made up by certain posters and their Tory chums to push a No vote. That gives you a pretty clear idea of their dishonesty.

In short they're lying to you.

If they tried to persuade you to take on a new voting system called 'FPTP' where a minority of voters could choose who rules the country you'd throw them out of your house because the fraud would be clear.

Tory politicians use AV for their own elections, if they're telling you to vote No, they're lying to you.

[silverfox]

Having lost the debate in the Drawing Room the pro-AV camp desperately tries to spread the message here. You can run but you can't hide.

Another great Leader in The Times today:

No Alternative

AV is irrelevant to the need to improve the voting system

"...First-past-the-post, like any voting system, is open to objection. Some regard it as a weakness that it can return fewer minority party MPs than their national share of the vote might suggest was fair. And it often has.

Yet this exact flaw is one of the things that helps to produce the current system?s greatest strengths ? its long history of producing clear election results that reflect broad public opinion. It is hard to think of a single election in the modern era where, of the two contenders, the party that is acknowledged as the less fit to govern has nonetheless been victorious.

This includes the last one, where voters were keen to remove Labour and, in particular its Prime Minister, but were nervous about handing power to the Conservatives, despite liking David Cameron and feeling that he should probably take over in 10 Downing Street. The mathematical outcome was almost magically perfect for achieving this objective.

This repeated success in installing the prime minister that people want is a huge practical advantage to set against the theoretical advantages that are suggested for the alternative vote.

It is telling that the Yes to AV campaign emphasise the impact that they believe (wrongly) a new system might make on the conduct of individual MPs. This allows them to duck the question of the impact it might make on the election of governments. And while we continue to choose prime ministers by counting up the number of MPs supporting them in the House of Commons, it is this impact that is critical. Advocates of AV suggest, without grounds, that their new system will make individual MPs more accountable, and therefore more diligent. It might, however, have the opposite effect on governments. The directness of the current system, its ability to capture the national mood, would be lost, without obvious benefit.

There are many things that are wrong with the British Constitution. The standard of MPs is poor. Legislative scrutiny is too weak because there is not enough expertise in Parliament. The executive has dominion over the legislature, which leads to hasty and badly drafted laws. The House of Lords is still in a drama that began in 1911, with no end in sight. Turnout at general elections is too low. Local government has been emptied of power and Whitehall still tries to run things that are way beyond its competence.

None of these problems is a function of an electoral system. There is no solution to any of them even under discussion, let alone on offer. Instead of a serious discussion about why British politics isn?t working properly, we are being forced to sit through an irrelevant, tedious and hyperbolic argument about a small and unnecessary change to the electoral system. This is entirely about the internal politics of the coalition and not at all about the needs of the nation. The electoral system is not perfect. No system can be. But it is not broken, either. Other aspects of the British Constitution are broken and nobody has a proposal to fix them. AV is not only the wrong answer, it?s the wrong question. But, given that it is the question that we have been asked, the answer has to be No.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3005672.ece (Subscription required to read full article)

[mockney piers]

Very new labour tactic there silverfox.

Just by repeating something often enough doesn't make it true.

As a neutral the yes camp have been by far the more persuasive.

Soemthing about MarmoraMan's caution and mistrust of change has been more appealing than your misinformation admittedly, but the yes camp definitely won it for reasoned argument.

[Moos]

Really, Silverfox, you are quite shameless. Lost the debate? Regardless of which side you're on, it's clear that the debate continues.

Now, I'm a Yes-er on the grounds of choice but would still love to understand, as Mr Ben asked, why so few nations use AV for parliamentary elections. Does anyone have any insight?

[Moos]

Cross-posted with Mockers there... clearly we spat our coffee at the same time.

[*Bob*]

I wish I had the brains to cut-and-paste something from a newspaper, but I'm going to have to strike out on my own here.

"The most preferred candidate wins". That's it, isn't it? Once this mind-boggling concept and meaning of the word 'prefer' has been grasped; should even Rod, Jane and Freddy get sent to number 10, it will be because they were 'preferred', for if no-one 'preferred' them, then they wouldn't be there.

In addition, if you can only stomach one candidate, then you only use one cross. So it would seem that a move to AV would allow both a first past the post or a preferred victor. I expect The Times thinks Terry from Plumstead will merely dribble on his ballot paper, cross everything (including a few on the back for good measure), rather than attempt puzzle-out any of these lofty constitutional conundrums.

[Atticus]

I'm thinking yes but need to no more thinking. For instance, wouldn't AV lead to more coalition governments on the grounds that one party is less likely to get a majority?

[peterstorm1985]

My problem (*Bob*'s earlier example) is that if I send my loved ones out to get me a chocolate bar, what I want is a Green and Black bar and if they can't find it at the first shop I want them to try a bit harder to find it. I don't want them to simply buy me a Mars Bar because I offered it as a second option and it was easier. I want them to convince the shop owner that he really should be stocking Green and Black's; in fact, if he can call up his supplier and bike some round all the better. I get what you say that I could just say 'Green and Black or nothing' but then they'd come home with a couple of packets of crisps and I'd have to watch them eat it with my tummy grumbling, so I suppose in that case I'd prefer the Mars Bar. But I only want to choose the Mars Bar if I already know that the Green and Black isn't available. Otherwise I suspect that we may all end up with the Mars bar that no one really wanted. And a whole one always makes me queasy.

[aspidistra]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uuugghhh!

>

> My brain is simply incapable of understanding how

> this works. "List candidates in order of

> preference"? I mean - wtf?!

>

> Seriously. And if I (BA Hons, knight of the realm

> etc) can't manage it, how it poor Terry from

> Plumstead going to cope with the intricacies of

> listing candidates in order of preference?

If Terry from Plumstead can't master a form with a single order of preference, how does Terence the Third from Travis, Texas master this:

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/county_clerk/election/20081104/sampleballot_localelections.pdf

(randomly found sample US election ballot. BTW, write-in candidates are a regular feature of the US system, but are tricky to use correctly)

And this example is a lot less complicated than a lot of the ballots US citizens have to face every year (or every other year). I have seen far, far worse.

And I won't even begin on countries where all the political parties print their own ballot forms...

[Moos]

Peter, in that case just write "Green & Black" on the card and that makes it clear that no other will do for you.

[Huguenot]

I believe the point was made by Loz in another thread, but Australia has had AV for the last century, and has had fewer coalition governments than the UK.

So that particular claim from the 'No' camp is baseless fear-mongering. As with many of the other claims, please put it in the box marked 'bogus'.

[aspidistra]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

The NO vote claims FPTP is

> simpler and less costly. Both are verifiable and

> testable.

The No campaign has made many unverifiable claims, including the claim that AV gives people multiple votes, or gives some people multiple votes. Widely scanned and discussed on the interwebs.

[*Bob*]

aspidistra Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Terry from Plumstead can't master a form with a

> single order of preference, how does Terence the

> Third from Travis, Texas master this:

And the reason for showing me this bizarre ballot paper from the arse-end of nowhere is..?

Check this one out.. it's from a town called 'London'.

No.. I just can't figure out what it means. Perhaps someone clever at The Times can help.

[Moos]

Sorry Peter, I've just reread your post and missed your point in my earlier response. But I think you are conflating campaigning (convincing the shopkeeper) with voting (buying the bar). By the time you get to ticking boxes it's too late to change what's in stock. You can only have what's in the shop.

You might not like Mars as much as G&B but at least you can stomach them. Better than ending up with a Wagon Wheel which Moore than half of the chocolate eaters hate but a significant minority like best.

[aspidistra]

The London ballots were badly designed, and we told them so in 2004.

The reason being, they took advice from a sociologist at the LSE (I won't print his name, to save embarrassment) rather than from anyone who knows about forms design.

Uproar in 2004, and London Elects ran a workshop - which I was invited to - in 2005, and they were still listening to the sociologists rather than the forms usability people when it came to 2008. London Elects fawning over a 'professor' of some irrelevant subject does not make a good ballot design. And a good ballot design is one that people can use easily to register their intention, without error. That is not what they have.

[aspidistra]

And as a postscript to my previous post, much of the content of the ballot is unfortunately prescribed by law - in various Acts of Parliament - and lawyers make even worse forms designers than sociologists.

(By the way, I was told at that workshop that 'none of the above' would be politically unacceptable in the UK, and so would never appear on a UK ballot... though I'm sure it's something a lot of people would wish to see.)

[*Bob*]

What was the problem? Wrong colour?