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

>>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.<<

Hi Benjamin, I think the BNP angle is a red herring. With the
present system there aren't any BNP Members of Parliament.

The BNP argument is one of voting out of fear for an imaginary
outcome. The use of "fear" in influencing people to make certain
choices or to be steered into certain viewpoints is a well known
technique in advertising and PR.

You should only vote for something in a positive sense and out of
understanding. You either vote positively for a yes or positively
for a no. If you don't know what to do then it is best not to vote.
However you are currently doing the right thing - you are learning
about what it all means.

>>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.<<


Hi Iago, are you certain this is not reverse psychology? AV is
supposed to benefit the smaller parties over the larger parties.
Since the BNP is a smaller party what is to say that AV will not
increase their chances of getting a member into parliament compared
to the current First Past the Post System we presently have?

Well as usual you guys have not let me down. I asked a question on SEx and got some informative answers and some filth from 2legs. Here I am on ASK and I get some more informative debating and some blatant needling from RF. I&#39;m excited and interested to see intelligent arguments put both for and against AV. Two things rather sadden me
1) Nobody seems to be suggesting that FPTF is good, only that AV is no better
2) There is not a greater ranger of choice. I can&#39;t help feeling that if I do vote I will not be voting for an option that I really like, but one I dislike the least. I suppose there&#39;s an argument that says in this instance I simply shouldn&#39;t vote, but I do want to make it clear that I care enough to express an opinion, even if the opinion I want to express isn&#39;t on offer. I have spoiled votes in the past in order to, as it were, vote without voting, but I don&#39;t know how well this works.

On radio 4's Any Questions/Any Answers people were saying it will make MPs, rather than tell us which of their rivals NOT to vote for, it will make them start to tell us who of their rivals to vote for in second place to ensure their real rival doesn't get 2nd choice votes.

Lib dem voters (if there are any left) will be able to vote for Lib Dems as their first choice and then for whom ever they tactically voted for in the past to keep the main party they hate out.

Hence, if the Lib Dems don't get 50% of the vote first of all their second choice might do.

Though I have a feeling a Conservative or Labour wouldn't put Labour or Conservative as their 2nd vote so would they put Lib Dem or a smaller party say the Greens who then get in on the 2nd vote count?

>> 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 <<

Perhaps it's my finite intelligence, but I don't see anything wrong with this view at all, and I don't think it implies voting on a different question to the one asked. To unpack it a little....

A lot of people want STV or some system that's more proportional than AV within single constituencies. They don't want AV (ideally), but they'll vote for it because a 'no' vote on AV will be interpreted as a vote against any move to a more proportional optional. Essentially, it's voting for half of what you want, because half is better than nothing, and because if you have half now, you might get more later.

"There is not a greater ranger of choice. I can&#39;t help feeling that if I do vote I will not be voting for an option that I really like, but one I dislike the least."

You can do both, and this is why it's a significant improvement on the status quo. If X is a Tory (for example) living in a constituency which historically is a Lab-Lib marginal with a record of very low Tory support, X can vote Tory as a first preference (for the option X really likes), but can choose the LibDems as a second choice, safe in the knowledge that of the two who are most likely to win, the one X dislikes the least will receive her vote if the Tories don't receive enough support.

One criticism of AV is that Y's first preference for the LibDems counts for as much as X's second preference... there are other systems that account for this, but then it really starts getting complicated....

There's a lot to be said for the concept of simplicity itself, when it comes to voting and democracy. Some people..er or a lot probably, will not *get* AV. PR is simple. FPTP is simple. I think a lot of people will be put off AV because it seems like a dog's breakfast.

To such people I would simply say "don't put an X, put a 1".

AV can be as simple as you want it to be.

I'd pretty much go along with Otto's reasoning as to why voting for AV may be a good idea - a step in the right direction away from FPTP.

All those saying it'll let "extremist" groups like the Greens and the BNP in, well good. Our present system is profoundly unrepresentative and leads to tens of millions of people feeling their vote was wasted which in turn leads to growing disenchantment with the political process. If 3% of voters choose the "anarcho-socio-liberal-fascist" party, then that party should have 3% of parliamentary seats imo. Who the hell has the right to tell people *their* voice has no right to be heard?

AV in itself will change little. Most seats are safe seats and will be totally unaffected by AV. It might make the marginals more interesting though

Incidentally, coalition government is a *good* thing. It slows down the decision-making process which should hopefully reduce the number of simply bad political decisions that have been made in the last 50 years. Governments with large majorities run roughshod over the country and cannot be held to account by Parliament. A five year elected dictatorship - no matter it's political hue - is bad for democracy.

The Lib Dems want AV because more of them will get in...'they' are 'in' at the moment doing the Tories wetwork, abandoning what they stand for...will people trust them enough to vote for AV when it might allow them even more control and power...they say one thing when there's no chance of getting in because they pretty much know they won;t get in but now they are in they have the power and are showing who they truely are...Tories in Sheep's clothing...but then again aren;t all the public school boy led parties these days?

I'd argue *very* strongly that the Greens are not 'extremist', and certainly lumping them in with the BNP in any other sense that that they're minority parties. But I'm sure that's not being implied.

My ideal electoral system is one that would keep the constituency link. I like the idea of writing to 'my' MP and getting a response, of good constituency MPs gaining a personal vote above and beyond their party vote, and of bad MPs being vulnerable to challenge. I wouldn't like to see a Jonathan Aitken figure being smuggled back into Parliament courtesy of a party list system.

I'm rather more relaxed than most about AV giving the LibDems more influence than a lot of people. Firstly because, well, they deserve more influence given the historic size of the vote. Secondly, because it's clear that they're so flexible with their principles that they'd make good minority coalition partners. Don't like today's Lib Dems? Wait a few years, and I suspect a reinvention will come along. Thirdly, and party politically, they're still not as bad as the Tories.

Well, the Greens aren;t extremist in the sense the want anyone who isn;t anglo-saxon to get orf my land however...they do have a one track mind when it comes to certain things and hence are 'extremist' in wanting to follow certain tenets over what 'is best' for the general economy and people of the UK...in my opinion.

>To such people I would simply say "don't put an X, put a 1". <

Er that's the point. An X is absolute as a choice. The moment you have to start ranking things conceptually it becomes something else entirely..lots of people will simply just guess without much thought for 2 IMO.

And most people think about their number 1 choice at the moment? I think the only people who think about their x much these days are the tactical voters. The dyed in the wool voters don;t and the reactionary 'get the current shower out they've screwed things up enough I'll vote for the other lot' don't either'.

AV will come in...in a few years when people are pissed with the Tories and Lib Dems they will put Labour first, they'll not put Tory/Lid Dem 2nd so will go for some other party...either an independent or the Greens. However much you think putting BNP 2nd as a scare tactic people won't 'just in case'.

Won;t it be interesting if the BNP do get in on a 2nd voting round if AV does come in...it should make the main parties think a bit...

Effers, I'm afraid I don't have much time for the argument that ranking in order of preference makes it too complicated.

If someone can't grasp a simple concept like "rank these candidates in the order you prefer", I'm not sure they are taking their responsibilities as a citizen seriously.

It's not complicated as a thing to do..just conceptually. I think lots of people will simply be too lazy to work out a second choice. And as 3Dots points out..lots of people are even too lazy to work out a first choice...other than it's like the football team they've always supported.

But the thing is, you don't *have* to make a second choice. If you want to, you can simply pick your favourite candidate and leave it at that.

This post has been removed.

>>Hi Iago, are you certain this is not reverse psychology? AV is
supposed to benefit the smaller parties over the larger parties.<<

I don't credit the BNP leadership with that much intelligence. I can't see the BNP picking up many preference votes: their main argument (other than darkies and whoopsies out) is that the main political parties are corrupt and out of touch.

I don't think many people will have enough cognitive dissonance to vote for one of the main parties 1st and then the BNP and their argument of no other party can be trusted in 2nd.

Every time someone rolls out the 'AV is too complicated' argument I move a little closer to voting yes. AV isn't complicated, like all politics it's a glorified popularity contest. If you can count to one you can vote AV successfully. Plus calling people stupid is rarely a winning argument, unless your name is William Jefferson Clinton.

And that they say they would inject money 'back' into working class communities to improve welfare and schools etc...just what people really want...an improvement in the personal local needs. Which is very tempting to people...as it would be for anyone...and get rid of darkies and whoopsies(???!? very Frank Spencer) is an added bonus as it means more money for them...

>If you can count to one you can vote AV successfully.<

But not everyone's as bright as you, duckie.

BTW do we have an alternative vote in the referendum?