h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Anyone voting in this thing? If so, care to share how?

yes, yes

think it will be the political equivelent of fishing with handgrenades

Don't know, and don't know.


The first don't know; I.E., don't know if I'll be voting, is because I've not been sent a poling card, though my lodger has... I was on the register last time Ichecked, and certianly have always got poling cards in the past, so think I'll have to try find out who to contact; Idon't want to pressume that Its just gone missing, and turn up at the poling station to i find I'm not on the list...
And, the second don't know... I've still not entirely made up my mind, seems like a bit of political breaking things putting forward this option, rahter than the P
R version of an alternative voting system, which I would have definatley voted in favour of... NOt quite sure on all the pros and cons yet of the broken version being put forward...

Yes I'll vote, and I'll vote for AV.

IMO, there's a good example happening right now of why Britain needs voting reform. The government's approach to cuts is strongly influenced by their need to be in a much-improved place economically by the time the next election comes round. If people don't feel more prosperous by, say, summer 2014 latest, then the incumbents are bound to lose badly the following spring.

But there's a good case for a more protracted but shallower squeeze on public spending. The approach being taken risks stifling growth.

If we had a voting system that damped down the polarised swings in policy every five years, we'd have a stabler economy and we'd all be better off for it.

Yes I'll be voting, but I'm not sure which way I'll vote at the moment. Ivan the Terribly Average introduced me to the blogs of Anthony Green, an Australian political analyst and they're making me lean towards voting for AV.

I think it was a good idea to make sure Nick Clegg didn't attend the launch of the Yes campaign - he's one of the main arguments against AV right now, certainly for me.

Yes, and probably yes. We already have a form of PR here in NI so I'll have to read up on the difference.

Anyone got a link to a relevant synopsis?

Yes and Yes (and no to Kea, google is your friend )

Here's a link from BBC news which I think summerizes the issues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11609887

I'm not sure actually, I don't like the current bunch, and a collation hasn't stopped nasty things, but I did think *before* the current government that PR would be better.

I don't actually think much will change as a result of this - my future will still be determined by a few hundred floating voters in swing constiuencies.

No, I'm not voting. I could if I set up the necessary overseas postal voting thing, but I don't think it's reasonable to influence the decisions of a country I have no intention of returning to.

If I did live there, though, I'd definitely vote against AV. I don't think that changes to the voting system should be made based on the transient popularity, or otherwise, of the governing party. That seems to be what's happening in this referendum. The debate gets hijacked into a popularity contest for whoever is supporting/against the system. Maybe 10% (and I'm being generous there) of voters will actually vote according to the merits of whichever system they choose. In such a case, an abstention is not a viable choice.

RF

We're not being given much of a choice of systems though are we? I'm voting yes as an indication that I want change, and in the hope that a yes vote (and successful implementation) will show that change is actually possible.

I heard one of the senior tories (this was weeks ago but think it was William Hague) saying we didn't want a sytem where candidates had to change their message to appeal to people who would otherwise vote for extremist parties nd thought eh? That is *exactly* what we want surely? Bringing disffected and protest voters back into the mainstream seems like a good idea to me!

So the Lib Dems have got their wish of a referendum so the electorate has the chance of 3 party politics...well we've got 3 party politics with the current coalition and it seem the Lib Dems have thrown their election promises out to suck up to the Tories...

z



I think the current situation shows that 'power corrupts' the Lib Dems sure have 'changed' simply to ensure they have power...or at least the people atthe top have that feeling of power.

Fluffy Lib dems till they get a sniff of real power then the mask falls. (They're all as bad as each other so I'm not just having ago at the Lib dems here)

My concern is that people will vote on it without understanding the system they are voting on. It really isn't that complicated.

- You vote for candidates in order of preference. 1, 2, 3...

1. If anyone gets more than 50% of the number 1s, they are elected. Full stop. Not much difference to the way it is now.

2. If nobody gets more than 50% of the number 1 votes - say A gets 42%, B gets 38%, C gets 15% and D gets 5% - D is eliminated.

3. This leaves candidates A, B and C. D's second preferences are counted. If they bring anyone above 50%, this person wins. If not, the process happens again until someone gets more than 50%.

This system actually works *against* extremists like the BNP - it means that nobody can be elected without support (or at least acceptance) of a majority of voters. The way it stands now, a candidate can be elected with a tiny minority if there are enough other candidates to divide the vote.

Re: the BNP.

They're vehemently opposed to AV. That tells me all I need to know on whether it'd favour them or not.

I've seen commentary that it might hamper the Greens quite significantly apart from in seats, like Caroline Lucas', where they're in a very close 3-way battle. In those cases, the Greens would actually be better off.

I don't see how. If everyone how would have given the Greens an X just gives them a 1, they won't be any worse off. The only difference is that if a Green candidate is unsuccessful those voters still have some say on who the eventual winning candidate is...

I think it's because most people vote Green as a social conscience type thing: it's something they feel they should do. Introduce preferential voting and people are more likely to salve their consciences by putting Greens as 2nd or 3rd preference, after one of the main parties.

That was how I understood the article (I think it was in the Grauniad last week but I can't be sure).

I'll be voting 'YES'. One significant reason is that, if the result comes out as 'NO', it will be taken (especially by those with an agenda) to mean the public voting for the status quo, and the system needs to change.
I am reminded of the Australian constitutional referendum. Over here, we were told that Australians had come out in support of the Queen. Hwever, I've since heard from Australians that they actually voted _against_ the alternative form of government proposed, which was a bit of a mess.
If we get AV, we can always tweak it later to a system that suits us better, but we can't if the naysayers can pretend that unfairness has public support.

Well this has all been jolly informative and thought provoking, thanks guys. SOme very interesting information, especially the thing about the BNP. That is food for thought.