![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWell, it is not over yet, but the way it is going , it looks as if the UK has rejected AV by something like 2 to 1.
I think both campaigns were badly done.
The No vote made claims like 'it will need vote counting machines', and 'it will favour extremists'.
Well the BNP rejected AV, while the Greens backed it.
And David Blunkett himself has said that the claims about the alleged costs of AV were ' made up', and no, machines would not be needed either.
On the No side, a lot of celebs were wheeled out - now Colin Firth is a great actor, but what has this got to do with politics?
AV was rejected at first as a 'miserable little compromise' - but it was all that cameron would allow. The rejection of AV, though, is no mark against Proportional Representation, for AV makes no claims for being Poportional - just a bit of an improvement on FPTP. Oh, it will kick the argument into the long grass for decades, I know - but the government did not allow a referendum on PR , it just posited FPTP against AV, and AV lost. This does not prove that FPTP is wonderful by default, though.
Consider this -
Tony Blair, when last elected, led the Labour Party to victory on a mere 35% of the vote.
That is hardly ' A Mandate From the People', is it?
If you get a mere 35% of the vote, you should have got 35% of the seats in the House of Commons.
Maybe you disagree - if so, please tell us why.
It is argued that we will have coalition governments no end if we switch to PR. Well, let me remind you that we have a coalition right now in the UK. So, at least give us a coalition that reflects our choices , not yours, Dave.
"A coalition " some argue " leads to horse trading , to dodgy deals and compromises behind locked doors."
Highly perjorative language, I think. I venture to suggest that it will cause politicians to sit down and talk seriously like grown ups in order to thrash out a workable agreement that most people are happy with.
Oh - I have a bad memory I know - but wasn't it when Tony Blair had an incredibly strong Majority, and nobody was really acting as an effective Opposition that he took Britain into a war over the missing WMDs that never got found? I don't actually want a governmen that can do that - i much prefer a government that has to ask around and get agreements - it stops them from doing anything that's really silly, y'know .
And a government that is secure behind a 35% result that gives a massive majority is more likely to sneer and go in for grandstanding - the making of cheap and personal insults at the opposition instead of trying to reach some eort of agreement with them.
David Cameron was reminded of a remark he once made - he claimed that his favourite political joke was Nick Clegg. So, what did he say now that he had been forced to accept him as his Deputy Prime Minister? A certain amount of humble pie was eaten , let me tell you. If this serious and humble attitude is the result of coalitions, let's have more of them, I reckon.
I much prefer to see politicians take the job seriously that carrying on like abadly behaved class of schoolkids.
But, people argue, Coalitions lead to weak government and to weak economies - like Germany's you mean ? No, I didn't think so.
So, let's forget AV - it was offered as an alternative, but is not the real deal. The Greens, including me, have always maintained that we were using AV as a stepping stone to STV anyway.
So - STV or not to be, that is the question
whether tis nobler in the mind to allow someone to take us into a war on a mere 35% of the votes, or to suffer the endless rounds of negotiations that will ensue?
First Past the Post - is it really the electoral system most widely used, or is that just Cameron's hype again?
Where people have several political parties competing , as in the UK, what would suit us best?
I think both campaigns were badly done.
The No vote made claims like 'it will need vote counting machines', and 'it will favour extremists'.
Well the BNP rejected AV, while the Greens backed it.
And David Blunkett himself has said that the claims about the alleged costs of AV were ' made up', and no, machines would not be needed either.
On the No side, a lot of celebs were wheeled out - now Colin Firth is a great actor, but what has this got to do with politics?
AV was rejected at first as a 'miserable little compromise' - but it was all that cameron would allow. The rejection of AV, though, is no mark against Proportional Representation, for AV makes no claims for being Poportional - just a bit of an improvement on FPTP. Oh, it will kick the argument into the long grass for decades, I know - but the government did not allow a referendum on PR , it just posited FPTP against AV, and AV lost. This does not prove that FPTP is wonderful by default, though.
Consider this -
Tony Blair, when last elected, led the Labour Party to victory on a mere 35% of the vote.
That is hardly ' A Mandate From the People', is it?
If you get a mere 35% of the vote, you should have got 35% of the seats in the House of Commons.
Maybe you disagree - if so, please tell us why.
It is argued that we will have coalition governments no end if we switch to PR. Well, let me remind you that we have a coalition right now in the UK. So, at least give us a coalition that reflects our choices , not yours, Dave.
"A coalition " some argue " leads to horse trading , to dodgy deals and compromises behind locked doors."
Highly perjorative language, I think. I venture to suggest that it will cause politicians to sit down and talk seriously like grown ups in order to thrash out a workable agreement that most people are happy with.
Oh - I have a bad memory I know - but wasn't it when Tony Blair had an incredibly strong Majority, and nobody was really acting as an effective Opposition that he took Britain into a war over the missing WMDs that never got found? I don't actually want a governmen that can do that - i much prefer a government that has to ask around and get agreements - it stops them from doing anything that's really silly, y'know .
And a government that is secure behind a 35% result that gives a massive majority is more likely to sneer and go in for grandstanding - the making of cheap and personal insults at the opposition instead of trying to reach some eort of agreement with them.
David Cameron was reminded of a remark he once made - he claimed that his favourite political joke was Nick Clegg. So, what did he say now that he had been forced to accept him as his Deputy Prime Minister? A certain amount of humble pie was eaten , let me tell you. If this serious and humble attitude is the result of coalitions, let's have more of them, I reckon.
I much prefer to see politicians take the job seriously that carrying on like abadly behaved class of schoolkids.
But, people argue, Coalitions lead to weak government and to weak economies - like Germany's you mean ? No, I didn't think so.
So, let's forget AV - it was offered as an alternative, but is not the real deal. The Greens, including me, have always maintained that we were using AV as a stepping stone to STV anyway.
So - STV or not to be, that is the question
whether tis nobler in the mind to allow someone to take us into a war on a mere 35% of the votes, or to suffer the endless rounds of negotiations that will ensue?
First Past the Post - is it really the electoral system most widely used, or is that just Cameron's hype again?
Where people have several political parties competing , as in the UK, what would suit us best?
(no subject)
Date: 6/5/11 23:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/5/11 23:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 00:25 (UTC)What system do you believe is used more?
Where people have several political parties competing , as in the UK, what would suit us best?
First past the post. As always.
Here's the issue - the argument for AV was not made poorly, it's that there's not a good argument for AV. FPTP creates clear results, forces compromise, and reduces the effect of the fringe. You really thought that UK voters would go for something that would aid the BNP?
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 02:16 (UTC)FPTP produces unclear results, it produces rule by the biggest minority. It does not force compromise, rather it abolishes alternatives and preferences (a damn funny thing for a so-called libertarian to advocate).
You really thought that UK voters would go for something that would aid the BNP?
How would AV aid the BNP?
This should be interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 03:39 (UTC)This should be interesting.
AV ensures fringe viewpoints get more electoral support.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 06:26 (UTC)In a general sense AV means voters will not "waste" their vote as they could do in FPTP. So people can vote for the Libertarians or the Nazis, before voting for the next preferred candidate, the Republicans (the best snarks are true).
However in a particular cases (i.e., actual seats), AV protects against extremist views. Extremist parties are much more likely to have significantly higher support in specific locales, which makes a great deal of sense on an organisational and political level, and is shown empirically by the actual results of the BNP (for example). Where mainstream parties are unable to cross-preference against extremist parties the opportunity for extremist views to be elected is increased.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:13 (UTC)The folly is in assuming such a vote is "wasted." Far from it - it's a statement that is fundamentally ignored in AV, since it won't matter when your second "choice" (which may not be a preference at all) is the real result.
Where mainstream parties are unable to cross-preference against extremist parties the opportunity for extremist views to be elected is increased.
Mainstream parties are able to protect against them by virtue of being mainstream parties. It forces fringe voters to think twice about indulging the fringe parties, as opposed to AV which encourages it.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:40 (UTC)It is in the general sense, it may not be in the particular instances.
It forces fringe voters to think twice about indulging the fringe parties, as opposed to AV which encourages it.
Which of course, has ample proof in places where it is practised, right? Oh, wait...
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:42 (UTC)Considering the fringe rarely gets a foothold in FPTP systems except in circumstantial periods, I'd say the evidence is pretty clear.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:57 (UTC)Given the evidence that has been presented to you it seems that you have your eyes wired shut.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 05:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 08:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:11 (UTC)That feels like a bizarre question to ask. Fringe viewpoints are fringe viewpoints for a reason.
The problem of the mainstream is that it's so wide that it caters to no one.
That's political compromise in a nutshell.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 09:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 11:36 (UTC)This also assumes we need radical change as opposed to more incremental activity.
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 00:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 09:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 09:16 (UTC)I don't actually have all the fcts and figures.
However, Boris Johnson was not made Mayor of London under FPTP.
David Cameron was not made Party Leader under FPTP,
and I believe that most of Europe uses some form of PR.
the fact that something gets used by everyone else is not an argument that we ought to have iit too, but FPTP in Britain menas you get to govern on 35% of the vote or less.
FPTP creates clear results, forces compromise, and reduces the effect of the fringe.
You call the last election a clear result, with Cameron going to both Labour *AND* the liberals to talk about a coalition partnership a CLEAR RESULT ???
Like, everyone was in a position to offer the other guy - whoever he was - an decent offer of support that would put him in charge. But any partnership with Brown was toxic, so nobody wanted him.
Yet nobody , on their own had any clear majority - which left the Conservatives to go Liberal and the Libs to take sides with the Tories.
FPTP has allowed George Galloway in. in the last Election , there was a serious and severe threat that if Greens stood, we could have allowed the BNP in because we were actually splitting the Labour vote, and it was Labour who had the power to stop the BNP.
Under AV , for all its faults, the BNP wuld still need 50% support to get in , not 35% or less. Galloway did it on 22% - scary, huh ?
Don't go falling for Tory spin about AV favouring the BNP, they were dead against it.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 12:17 (UTC)So you have no idea who uses what, but you have a problem with the person getting the most votes winning.
You call the last election a clear result, with Cameron going to both Labour *AND* the liberals to talk about a coalition partnership a CLEAR RESULT ???
Absolutely. The need to form coalitions in the British system does not negate the reality of it being a clear result.
FPTP has allowed George Galloway in. in the last Election , there was a serious and severe threat that if Greens stood, we could have allowed the BNP in because we were actually splitting the Labour vote, and it was Labour who had the power to stop the BNP
And FPTP allows Alan Grayson and Michelle Bachmann here. It's not perfect, no one said it is, but it's a better protection than AV, since the cranks are extremely marginalized and rarely get through.
I mean, it's like you want the BNP to be significantly empowered.
Galloway did it on 22% - scary, huh ?
Not really. If Galloway's that scary, perhaps the other candidates shouldn't be so equally divisive, no?
Don't go falling for Tory spin about AV favouring the BNP, they were dead against it.
AV would benefit libertarian viewpoints as well, but I'm also dead against the concept. Why? It's not about me or my viewpoint, it's about the best system for the nation. If my views cannot get plurality or majority support, there's something wrong with my views in the mainstream or I need to rethink how I'm presenting them. It doesn't mean that the voting system is pitted against me.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 22:13 (UTC)I don't want the BNP to be empoerered. i want them to face the electorate on equal terms , but this isn't the same thing. At present, they can appeal to labour voters as being the underdogs, and among people who feel marginaalised themselves by the whole political process, it does strike a chord...
If Galloway's that scary, perhaps the other candidates shouldn't be so equally divisive, no?
Oh, yeah - "don't rock th boat ot *THEY8 will get in. Leave it to people who are already shamed and discredited in the eyes of many to be the Champions of Democracy and Truth against The Extremists. I , and my party, say "Bullshit!" to that idea. If people want to vote against Respect, or the BNP, they can vote for US, they don't have to hold their noses and vote Labour !!!
What you are suggesting here is a complete and utter travesty. Labour do NOT - repeat NOT represent the Common People any more - we have got to stop pretending they do and start to replace them , not depend upon them to fight off the challenge from BNP and Respect ! We need a party to stand up to Tories ANND to Labour, who are really Thatcherism Lite. If Labour was any good at fighting off the BNP , they would have buried them already.
It doesn't mean that the voting system is pitted against me.
How many votes does it take toelect one Tory or one Labout MP? how many does it take to elect a Liberal, or even a Green MP?
When you come back with the rigght answer, please tell us how this disparity is justified ! The voting system IISD pitted against US, and also UKIP, and anyone else who wants to break the doupoly of the Labor /Tory combine.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 00:39 (UTC)It does favor extremists. This is one reason why the ultra-orthodox parties in Israel have such a disproportionate power in a closely divided Knesset. They get to be the king makers.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 06:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 01:28 (UTC)We don't have a PR system, we have a FPTP system.
So, let's forget AV - it was offered as an alternative, but is not the real deal. The Greens, including me, have always maintained that we were using AV as a stepping stone to STV anyway.
And that is why you lost. You were campaigning for something you didn't actually want. You expected the electorate to vote in favour of something that you didn't actually want, so that you could possibly get something better in the future. Something which had not been discussed with the electorate. People may not like FPTP but AV isn't any better and nobody not even the yes voters actually wanted it.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 09:02 (UTC)And we *ought* to have asystem like STV
The only merit of AV was that it opens up the possibility of STV.
Is FPTP going to deliver a debate on PR , or not?
Most political commentators on both sides agree that it wiill now be decades before the issue will get sorted.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 16:43 (UTC)I keep hearing this but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this would be the case(and by evidence I don't mean something on a political party's website).
Is FPTP going to deliver a debate on PR , or not?
It's not the voting system that delivers the debate, it's the political climate.
Most political commentators on both sides agree that it wiill now be decades before the issue will get sorted.
Yes that's because it is not a priority for the electorate - sixty percent of whom could not even be bothered to vote on the issue.
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 21:59 (UTC)This is the level of commitment that FPTP has driven the british public to. Over half of us do not give a damn about who gets in or how they get there. We only want to see to it that the pubs don't run out of beer, apparently.
What an indictment of our political system...
(no subject)
Date: 7/5/11 01:56 (UTC)(http://www.public-domain-content.com/encyclopedia/Countries/Voting_systems_by_nations.shtml)Here's the stats.
Party list is more common than FPTP (not enough difference to matter though), discounting mixed systems. We have a mixed system; FPTP in the lower house (where local representatives matter) and proportional in the senate; although the number of seats a state has is not based on population, so a fringe group from Tasmania only needs about 60000 votes to get a senate seat, whereas a major party from NSW needs ten times that per seat. I personally think it works well. 2004-2007 were one of the few times in our history where we had one party in control of both the reps and the senate (with about 45% of the popular vote). This lead to attempts at radical changes to the social contract in Australia. I like a system that is about compromise, not about one party thinking they have a mandate to rule like an emperor because less than half of the people voted for them.
()
(no subject)
Date: 8/5/11 09:29 (UTC)