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

"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."

That's a good point.

<>

At the Springburn by-election, one of the "spoiled" papers presented to the candidates at the count had something written beside the name of *every* candidate -

w*nk
w*nk
w*nk
good guy
w*nk
w*nk

Unfortunately, the "good guy" failed to convince the returning officer that this constituted a positive affirmation

"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."

The Green Party has changed (and is changing) substantially in terms of policies, membership, and outlook. A lot of what's commonly believed about Green Party policies is many years out of date. The challenge is getting that message across.

Some of their policies are radical, but there's nothing wrong with having radical policies when there are issues that require radical solutions. They're not 'extremists' in any sense.

I've got a bit of a thing for Caroline Lucas. If she wants AV..I might just be persuaded.

I guess that's what they call "leadership abilities".

Don&#39;t get me wrong, if I was going to spoil my vote I&#39;d do it properly. I tend to spoil European election ballot papers (my own, that is) by writing &#39;I do not know who any of these people are&#39; across the paper in large writing. I got the shock my life the first year I was down here, turns out I could have voted for Robert Killroy-Silk.

Which one of Robert Kilroy-Silk's political incarnations would that have been? I had the impression he changes his party more often than his underwear.

In cases such as this (and possibly all cases), I don't think "answering a different question to the one asked" is necessarily more stupid, but can be less. It indicates knowledge and understanding of the issues that _surround_ the question, including nuances that aren't immediately apparent. Admittedly, that does leave open issues such as "Do I like the guy we're told is asking the question?" but that's a risk we have to take.
If you don't believe the public are capable of giving a considered opinion, the only option is not FPTP or AV, but 'benign' dictatorship. As this is not an option which will ever be under (serious) consideration, we have no choice but to make our best attempt at establishing what the country wants, and accepting what comes back.
Incidentally, the probable reason that there aren't more options in this referendum is that it splits the vote. People who don't want anything changed can rally under one banner, whereas those who think the system needs to change will be cut in two. This is the reason some blame Ralph Nader for Bush Jr. being elected first time around: the right-wing block were united under Bush, while the left-wing block had Nader's Greens sapping their vote, with the result that neither got what they wanted, despite being the greater total.

I haven't decided whether to vote in the referendum yet, I live in a town that is Labour to its core, it wouldn't matter if I voted Lib Dem, Green Party, Raving Mad Loony Party, or Captain Beany (yes, he was an option on my ballot paper!! ) I would still end up with a Labour MP. So whatever the end result of the referendum it wouldn't actually make any difference to me at all.

Whatever we end up with after all this, I think it was Winston Churchill who said, most appropriately ...

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."

Lx

P.s. While I think of it ... maybe Gordon Brown should have thought about this quote from good old W.C. ... "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

I can&#39;t claim any expert knowledge of how often Kill-Roy silk changes his underwear, but I seem to recall he was standing for the.... um... what was it... respect party? The we hate Europe party? The all off our members are insufferable gits party? I think it was Respect. I suspect respect was some sort of ackronym,

I think it depends on whether he chose to share or shaft earlier...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZ86GYoxE0

I'll come in here later when I have more time to actually post but a couple of quick points I feel the need to make about the backlog.

I think it is totally wrong to think about these issues in terms of specific party advantage/disadvantage. The political and electoral system sets the rules of the game. It shouldn't be about how to advantage/keep out specific parties.

Whatever you think of groups like UKIP, Greens etc they are supported by very large numbers of people (probably in 7 figures). In is antithetical IMHO to the principle of democracy that these legitimately held views do not get a proper airing in our political system. I really struggle to understand how anyone could think it is anything other than an affront. If you dont like the views of a party campaign/vote against them. That is how democracy works.

I'd often been a supporter of the "no platform" policy in respect of the BNP and other fascist parties. But I no longer feel that is tenable. In reality in a democracy you probably have to accept that sometimes unpalatable people and views will gain traction. The answer is not to contextualise arguments about political reform in terms of the BNP, but to campaign/vote against those views.

Thats all for now, a proper response about why I am voting yes will follow at some point.

FB

"Whatever you think of groups like UKIP, Greens etc they are supported by very large numbers of people (probably in 7 figures). In is antithetical IMHO to the principle of democracy that these legitimately held views do not get a proper airing in our political system. I really struggle to understand how anyone could think it is anything other than an affront. If you dont like the views of a party campaign/vote against them. That is how democracy works."

But that's the problem atm, and will also be the problem with any other version of democracy ... I can't vote *against* any party, I can only vote *for* some other party!!

Now if there was a box on the election paper, next to certain political parties, that I could tick that said "No way in hell am I voting for this party, and I definitely don't want them to get into power ... that would be a fantastic way of voting "against" a party!!

Lx

A mate on facebook has just raised an interesting question, which I don't know that answer to: what would happen with deposits under AV? Under FPTP if you get less than 5% of the vote you lose your deposit - under AV would that be the same? Which percentage would you look at - the initial one, or the percentages once a winner has been declared?

Anyone on here know?

>> 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

Yes .. a lot of money is wasted in what is effectively a 2-party system.

Labour: "We're going to make lots of separate benefits, claimed by phone, shutting down offices and changing the name of the Depts. responsible"

Tory: "We're going to make one unified benfit etc."

Oh, Lord!

I expect to be voting. However I may abstain.

I am yet to decide whether to vote on the question asked, or to attempt to vote strategically.
As RF pointed out; voting for idiosyncratic reasons and expecting those reasons to be apparent from the overall results would be stupid.

"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

A "No." may be my honest answer to the question in isolation, and answering that way may be the least stupid thing to do. But, I'm not entirely convinced of that...

Politicians have a way of declaring an election or a referendum result to be a "mandate".

I, as someone who protested outside of the negotiations between the Tories and Libs for "Fairer Votes" am faced with a strategic dilemma.

AV is not a better system than FPTP.
It *does not* address the fundamental problems with our electoral system.
Which include, but are not limited to...
a bias toward Labour, safe seats, inequality of voting power and a lack of representativeness of the public will.
It is a differently poor electoral system.

Whilst the "NO Campaign" argue that it will let extremists parties in, it will in fact drive votes toward an artificial populist middle-ground.

Whilst they argue that it will lead to more coalitions, the true cause of coalitions is the increased number of safe seats and the way safe seats are distributed geographically and between Labour and the Tories.

They argue that LibDems want it so they can be "King Makers", however there is little reason to believe that any seats they gain under AV won't be outweighed by the number they lose under it, let alone for the number of seats they will lose as constituency sizes are equalised.

So, as someone that wants reform to address the core faults in our democracy...
Which way do I vote?
For the status quo? I don't want AV. It's a terrible system. But, so is the status quo.

Politicians, as voters will interpret the question idiosyncratically, will interpret the answer in their own special way.
A vote against AV; as a mandate for the status quo, a reflection that there is no public mood for electoral reform of any kind.

A vote for AV; as mandate for reform. A reflection that the public want their votes to count.

However, AV will increase the bias in the electoral system toward Labour.
So, whilst a mandate for reform, is it not likely it will be a mandate for this reform and no further, at least to Labour politicians content with the new status quo.

Perhaps the status quo would on balance be the the quicker route to substantive reform. As it may make Labour an ally to change rather than obstacle, and with AV rejected other, better systems may be the subject of a referendum.

I remain undecided.

Very well put.

<>

I've been coming round to this point of view. I had been thinking of AV as a "first step", but it's far more likely to take electoral reform off the political agenda for a generation.

If, as Jack Straw says, equalisation of constituency sizes makes Labour unelectable then substantive reform will be the only show in town for them.

The obvious problem is that the two great political movements in the UK with the wealth and manpower to influence the vote will always tout for systems that benefit their own narrow aims rather than the overall good of the country.

>> AV will increase the bias in the electoral system toward Labour

Why?

>>the status quo would ... be the the quicker route to substantive reform<<

This is an example of why language is so fascinating.

I've heard barely a mention of the referendum in the media in terms of discussion. Maybe it's because it's still a way off. But its going to affect our democracy..you'd think it might have a higher profile as an issue. There seems to be a sense of profound indifference. I've heard it suggested that there might be only something like a 25% turnout.