Huguenot

Mind you, for you 'everyone else' presumably falls into that 80% that are insensible and barely deserving of your respect. This is some sort of Philosopher King argument - you're the Philosopher King and they're the proles? Can't think for themselves? Thank heavens for the glorious genetic rectitude of the Conservatives? Born to lead. Thank heavens that they can lie to the knuckle dragging general population and get them to do what they want. That's why you were lying earlier right? Because you weren't lying to real people, you were lying to the '80%' who deserve no more respect than dogs? Come on mate, you didn't really mean that right? Maybe everyone else is just seeing something that you can't?

It is of course telling that you don't say 'the poor arguments in favour of AV', instead you say the 'poor arguments presented in favour of AV'. It's almost like you think governance and democracy are a gameshow, not a crucial decision on what is essentially a social crisis for the UK. For you the conservative party may be about prim dialectic righteousness, for others it's about feeding and educating their children, having a job and a future. Maybe that's the essential problem with Tories? Smug and snug in their homes, bank accounts overflowing with avocados, they just can't remember what it's like for everyone else.

There is something of the night about Marmora Man.... ;-)

My love has no boundary today for the wonderful people of ED. I'm so glad that my heart for the UK sits in East Dulwich. From the temperance of Loz to the enthusiasm of Killer Queen what a truly beautiful demonstration of the care and consideration that we have for our society. Get out, get yourself a pint, send me the bill (no chance of me paying it, but I want to see the joy ;-))

You're joking right Quids? Whilst my irritation spills onto the page, Loz has been nothing but courteous. Regardless of my frustration, I've spent pounds of energy to illustrate the benefits of AV in a way that the 'No' voters haven't. The'No' campaign has essentially been silverfox repeatedly saying 'I'm confused' in order to draw out explanations that he can confuse once more, Marmora Man throwing up straw men to knock them down, and misscarmelite copying and pasting stuff from conservative central office. There have been no arguments on the right, just spoiling tactics. The 'Yes' proponents on this forum have worked hard to explain the benefits. I hope you can find a way of mitigating your observation, because I'd like to retain my respect.

You just don't get it do you misscarmelite? This isn't a football match. We're not trying to 'beat' anyone. I don't think pro-AV supporters are 'on my team', I think they're progressive, altruistic, socially minded and informed. I think it's desperately sad that AV has failed to capture the support of the nation because of the lies, dishonesty and smear tactics of poorly informed people like you. Calling me a 'loser' says nothing about me, but it does say an awful lot about your paper-thin personality.

No pisstaking - a degree of confusion though. Everywhere I've worked full time (always in London) we had the equivalent of a tea lady, in fact there were several. They were invariably called the 'sandwich man' even if they were female. They arrived on bikes with big flat bakers baskets on. Entrepreneurialism at its best.

It's incredible misscarmelite, you simply cannot tell the truth can you? Check out your quote : You have the elevated self delusion to claim that the 'Brits are enfeebled and fearful and wonder around like headless turkeys" You've put it in quotation marks, but it's not actually a quote is it? You made up the 'wonder' and the 'headless' bit didn't you? You didn't even have the grace to spell 'wander' correctly, nor correctly remember the metaphor that headless fowl don't wander, they run. That's the Tories for you, making stuff up. As for the 'naive' bit, this is from a girl who can't tell the difference between AV and PR? Idiot. Interesting that you chose 'carmelite' as your name. It's an order that believe in absolute obedience to authority. No suprise then that you'd be campaigning against AV, you don't even believe in democracy.

*sighs* I didn't think they did Quids, I was just trying to illustrate that employing more people doesn't take the GDP up correspondingly, and can drag 'productivity per employee' down. Totally agree on your second point. The next thing people will campaign for is legislation to prevent that oputsourced scenario, and then 5 years later people will start talking about a nanny state and bureaucracy holding back the nation. Circles.

Yes d_c that's right, but it's about productivity and efficiency. If you have a bank with 1 employee that makes $1m, then it makes $1m per head. If social conscience leads them to employ a cleaner then productivity drops to $500k per head. The rival bank doesn't employ the cleaner and claims that they are twice as productive. QED full employment strategies lead to apparent drops in productivity.

Misscarmelite, like so many bullies you are quick to cry foul when the tables are turned. You made ridiculous allegations of racism in this thread, I don't appreciate being associated with the BNP. I tried to pass this off as a lighthearted misunderstanding, but you persisted with the theme. You then made blindingly inaccurate statements about AV based on outcomes of PR, once again with a racial slant. Despite being comprehensively corrected you then repeated the allegations!!! It is clear at that point that you had absolutely no interest in discovering the facts behind AV, instead you were embarking on a campaign of smear and dishonesty. You have some cheek in complaining you are hard done by. You're quite incorrect about my enthusiasm for AV based on political affiliations. I don't treat politics like a football supporter, I prefer to make my decisions based on policy and track record. My voting record is not consistent. On that basis alone, I'm staggered by the degree of dishonesty in the 'no' camp, a dishonesty shared by yourself and a few others on this forum. It's an insult to the British public of devastating proportions. It was an effective if shameful strategy, as the enfeebled and fearful Brits voted 'no' like turkeys voting for Christmas. Such a lack of national pride is a tragedy in its own right. I've been a supporter of AV for 22 years, and would have campaigned on its behalf regardless of the incumbent government. You may not have noticed, enmeshed as you are in the intransigence of your flawed opinion, but the Labour old guard were anti-AV. They, like the Tories, were greedily obsessed with preserving their elevated status, and wanted to keep their noses firmly in the trough.

'Productivity' has been touted by the French for many years as an example of their industrial prowess. However, it's far from that: it's simply calculated by dividing the GDP by worked hours. The fact is that UK social strategies have long focused on reducing unemployment whereas the French have not - even at the moment our rate is 20% less than France, for the majority of the last decade we have been 50% of that in France. French productivity 'gains' in the mid eighties were anything but - in fact the gap was a reflection of Thatcherite strategies that reduced unemployment from 11.3% to 6.7% This volatile area of economic activity - the people who move into and out of employment - are invariably at the low productivity blue collar end of the spectrum. They're very rarely in the white collar wealth generation sphere. They're mostly jobs in industrial sectors with tightly regulated hours. There's no 3 hour lunches when you're working in a paint factory. Hence worked hours can appear to rise. As a result all countries who have full employment strategies, as the UK usually does, and Thatcher did in the mid eighties, are the whipping boys of the 'productivity' tables. But it's all bollocks, as are, frequently, the French ;-)

misscarmelite, you've appeared out of the blue today, only to post 5 times anti-AV. Your fabricated claims about letting in the BNP have been shown to be a lie, your claims about Europe have been a fraud, and now you're making more claims that look like they've been copy and pasted from a handbook on trashing AV. In short, you're trying to con the people on this forum. However, you give me the chance to reiterate 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. Tory politicians use AV for their own elections, if they're telling you to vote No, they're lying to you. misscarmelite you're a fraudster. Vote 'Yes' to AV because you refuse to be conned by people like misscarmelite

*chuckles* So in other words ianr, it's not perfect, but it's better than we had before ;-)

The BNP won their first ever county council seat, in Burnley, with 30% of the vote. See here. Here is the electoral reform society warning the country that FPTP will let the BNP into Burnley FOUR years earlier. You can only win with 30% of the vote in FPTP. That's why the BNP want FPTP. Vote YES for AV and keep out the racists.

No worries Auntie Mimi. I'm sorry you've been getting poor information from the right wing media. In AV to win a seat you have to have been supported by at least 50% of the electorate (a majority). In FPTP if you have, say, 8 candidates, you could get in by being voted for by as few as 15% of the electorate (you only need to have more votes than any of the other candidates). The BNP know they're never going to get votes from as much as 50% of the population, but they know they might be able to get 20%. For this reason, the BNP want FPTP. If you don't want the BNP, don't vote the way the BNP want you to.

misscarmelite, first you accuse me of racism (WTF?) Then you claim to criticise AV by bringing up examples of proportional representation, a completely different system? Moronic. 'Intelligent Debate'???? Are you a complete prat? The problem is that it's idiots like you talking complete bullshit that have actually undermined democracy. Vote 'Yes' to AV to give yourself a chance to marginalise idiocy and prejudice.

See note about AV waving goodbye to BNP earlier ;-)

That's excellent reggie :-)

The BNP know what's in their own best interests - that's why they're voting NO The BNP can't obtain the majority support that AV demands from a winner. That's why the BNP don't want it. If you don't want minority extermist parties getting in, vote YES to AV.

Please, please give your voice a chance...

Buy a car that's below the emmissions threshold?

Assumptions? I just read your posts. Most people can understand a run off in a presidential vote - they happen the world over when no candidate gets a clear majority. Most people think a run off is the right anf fair thing to do, including Brits. Most people agree that it would be nonsense to exclude people from the run-off vote who voted for other people in earlier rounds. Even you silverfox, would not be so daft as to refute that. That's all AV does - allows you to do a run-off without returning to the polls in cases where no candidate gets a clear majority. Tories and dinsaurs don't want fair, they don't want democracy, they want to cheat to get a minority government. Vote 'Yes' to get your nation back.

That's another lie silverfox, you've got loads. The vote coincides with local elections which are dominated by older voters. Older voters like yourself rarely have ambition for a fairer future and a more balanced nation, they'd prefer that everything just stayed the same. Having lived your life you're not really motivated to help other people have a better one. This means that the timing of the vote benefits FPTP. Success for the 'Yes' vote rests entirely on being able to motivate voters under 40 alongside rational altruistic progressives (a group that you despise for their liberal views). You have frequently made clear your views that democracy is too expensive, you like rousing militaristic religious fervour, you want strong leaders instead of rational ones, and that you think freedom to carry guns is the solution to crime. In that context saying 'no' to democracy and telling lies to get your way seems entirely predictable.

There seems to be a group of people who treat voting like football teams, where the winner of an election is the one that scores the highest number of points regardless of whether this is a majority or not. This is not democracy. Democracy is about identifying the candidates that have the majority support of the electorate. AV is not about reduced percentage vote value or ridiculous 'no' camp fabricated maths, it's about weeding out unpopular candidates until only two remain and then asking the electorate to vote on these final two. It's equivalent to a presidential run off when only two candidates remain. If one candidate gets over 50% of the vote in initial rounds you know they can't be beaten and so don't need to carry on the weeding. In a run off you don't say 'anyone who voted for anyone else is not allowed to vote' or that their vote is worth less. Stupid idea. You're not struggling to understand a run off are you? AV allows you to do this without returning to the polls. This is not complicated. This bullshit about reduced value in votes completely misses the point. It's mainly being driven by dishonest 'no' camp politicians who use the system themselves, but don't want it for everyone else.