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

It's a shame and it has now distorted the OPs thread. Anyway I think I have said all that needs to be said on my part regarding next weeks referendum. Looking back over the thread I note that Otto Fisch was essentially saying the same thing regarding the FPTP/AV choice. Hopefully benjaminpmoore will now be in a better position to make up his choice.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

**

But myself and HI have a bit of a rough and tumble relationship. But I love him. We're like brother and sister..

I haven't heard the referendum mentioned today on radio stations. There's 4 days left for the millions of the electorate who actually will make this decision to learn enough to make a sensible one.

I'm AV at present.

>>Landslides punctuated by hung parliaments, sound familiar?<<

No, actually - it doesn't sound like any democracy I know of. It doesn't match Australia's experience of AV where the two party (well, 2-and-a-half party) system has continued but with fewer landslides no hung parliaments. Last years election was insanely close but it was an exceptional set of circumstances.

It's another one of the No arguments that doesn't stand up to scrutiny: there's no evidence, no whatsoever, that AV leads to weaker governments or more common coalitions. AV might strengthen the Lib Dems to the point that more coalitions happen here but, let's face it, that was happening under FPTP anyway: it was always a case of when, not if, the Lib Dems would be needed to form a coalition.

I'll say one thing about the last page or so: although it's hard to say just how large it is, a large section of the nationwide electorate vote (for their local MP) on the basis of the national policies proposed by the parties that those candidates represent. Yes, the difference between "FPTP" and AV lies in how the individual constituency candidate is chosen, but the effect of this on the makeup of parliament as a whole has to be considered, since this is the aspect of the debate which will be of most interest/concern to many of the people voting.

However, it is true that considerations of which parties are currently favoured by any given system are short-termist*, and we should be very wary of giving them too much weight.

There's got to be a better word for this, but I can't think of it off the top of my head.

>>No, actually - it doesn't sound like any democracy I know of. <<

Really. You're not from the UK then?

>>It doesn't match Australia's experience of AV where the two party (well, 2-and-a-half party) system has continued but with fewer landslides no hung parliaments.<<

Why would it?
We don't a 2 party system. We have 3 party with larger shares of the vote and two large regional parties and 3 small but not totally insignificant single-issue parties.

We're more like Canada than Australia in that respect.

I didn't argue that AV is a direct cause of hung parliaments. That is NO campaign idiocy.
Australian Landslides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslide_victories#Australia

>>Last years election was insanely close but it was an exceptional set of circumstances.<<

No it wasn't. It's part of along-term trend in shifts of voter distribution and as such safe-seat distribution.


>>>It's another one of the No arguments that doesn't stand up to scrutiny: there's no evidence, no whatsoever, that AV leads to weaker governments or more common coalitions.<<

Non sequitur. I did not suggest there was.

I'm not NO Campaign. And neither are my arguments.
Unlike you, who only months ago were threatening to vote "NO" because Clegg hurt your feelings, I'm long-term agitator for electoral reform who has actually bothered to understand the pros and cons of the various systems in a UK setting.

>>AV might strengthen the Lib Dems to the point that more coalitions happen here but, let's face it, that was happening under FPTP anyway: it was always a case of when, not if, the Lib Dems would be needed to form a coalition. <<

"that was happening under FPTP anyway"

Your final killer argument against my "Landslides punctuated by hung parliaments, sound familiar?" is to acknowledge it was already happening. Go you!

>> it is true that considerations of which parties are currently favoured by any given system are short-termist

Yes, exactly .. it's just a slighty more complex system to decide a winner.

There are in reality advantages and disadvantages with both systems.

It's no doubt true that the simpler of the two is FPTP! It doesn't have a MAJOR flaw, so it could be argued "if it aint broke, don't fix it".

On a small scale election (such as party leaders), I can't see why AV would not be a better way of deciding, although I don't think that it's worth losing any sleep over
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that the BNP and the Torys are the main parties fighting the 'no' campaign .. I suppose they want to stop the ethnic minorities from gaining more power. However, AV or no AV, it doesn't look like that they will succeed in their aims in the long run!

I'm still going to vote for AV on thursday, but it doesn't look like AV will 'win' .. I can live with that .. I don't vote in every election anyway
And I certainly don't vote for Labour or Conservative!

>>Really. You're not from the UK then?<<

Yes I am, which is why I don't recognise your claim. We haven't had a landslide victory in the UK for more than a decade. Then you've got another 10 years between the landslides of 87 and 97 and prior to the 83 the last one was 66.

Maybe you and I have different understandings of regular but 5 in 45 years isn't regular to me. Similarly the claim about hung parliaments - we've had two in the last 30 years and (iirc) 5 in the whole history of the British parliamentary system.

But hey, when the facts don't actually match your argument, go for the ad hominem - that'll convince people, right?

>>Why would it?<<

Because Australia is the largest democracy to use AV and the one most similar to our own constitutional set-up and general society. In the Senate Australia's Green Party act like our own Lib Dems and there still hasn't been the situation you've described.

>>We don't a 2 party system. We have 3 party with larger shares of the vote and two large regional parties and 3 small but not totally insignificant single-issue parties.

We're more like Canada than Australia in that respect.<<

Highly debateable. First of all Plaid Cymru aren't a large regional party in Westminster, they've got two MPs. They're also likely to be kicked out of government in the upcoming Welsh Assembly elections. Northern Ireland basically runs a parallel system to the rest of the UK so the party set-up there could hardly be included in the UK-wide discussion.

>>No it wasn't. It's part of along-term trend in shifts of voter distribution and as such safe-seat distribution.<<

Right, because Rudd's spectacular implosion and deposition by Gillard, followed by an early election in the midst of a recession was business as usual for Australia.

>>Unlike you, who only months ago were threatening to vote "NO" because Clegg hurt your feelings, I'm long-term agitator for electoral reform who has actually bothered to understand the pros and cons of the various systems in a UK setting.<<

First of all, I wasn't making a threat - get a grip - I was undecided and Clegg was a factor in my decisions. We've all got our priorities and back then being pissed at Clegg was one of mine. It was a shallow one but so what? Since then I've calmed down somewhat and recognised other things matter more. It's not that I didn't know or understand the other points, just my unwillingness to hand Clegg a political boon was such it out-weighed them.

But, again, when the facts aren't suiting your case, much easier to slander me and claim I don't understand. After all, it's not like I've got a degree in politics that could help me understand all of this... oh wait, I do.

>>Your final killer argument against my "Landslides punctuated by hung parliaments, sound familiar?" is to acknowledge it was already happening. Go you!<<

It's strange Jack, I'd have sworn English was your native language but most native English speakers understand the difference between the present and future tenses. 'Is happening' is not the same as 'has already happened and, lo, here are the results'. The current set-up is the first time this has ever happened so how does referring to *previous* "Landslides punctuated by hung parliaments" make any kind of point?

Snookums, step down a bit - the uncalled-for levels of hostility aren't going to get you anything other than ridicule. It's not like you can argue history and banter like me and Effers can to justify it.

I said:-
"I certainly don't vote for Labour or Conservative!"

Of course, I meant that in the context of FPTP
In AV, it wouldn't be my first choice, although I'd use a subsequent choice for one of the two .. whichever seemed preferable at the time..

At this moment, that would be Conservative, although if you ask me again in a couple of years, it may well not be

The leaders of both parties were elected by the AV system. David Davies and Ed Ball would have won by the first past the post vote.

>>The leaders of both parties were elected by the AV system. David
Davies and Ed Ball would have won by the first past the post vote.<<
...


I have noticed that the "No to AV" advocates use the argument that
with the "AV" system the "LEAST WORST CANDIDATE" gets elected ....

... personally I would prefer to have the least worst candidate
getting elected than the worst candidate

I would prefer the Supplementary Vote System which uses 2 columns, one for first preferences and the other for second and people put a cross next to their preferred party for the first preference and then it is optional for the second, but then there are no more preferences. I think that would sort the problem out and would be far faster to count. Maybe if the result is yes very narrowly on a low turnout there will be a compromise in which Supplementary Vote System is used rather than the option of listing all candidates by preference.

Even if the referendum is passed it still requires a further bill to introduce it, the same bill that is to introduce the new boundaries. Most of the opposition will fight the bill whether or not AV is included as an option, and if AV is in as an option it will be opposed by some backbench Conservatives as well who are prepared to sabotage the entire bill in order to stop AV if neccessary. Even so the Boundary Commission has to report back before the bill can be introduced as legislation so far only introduced the AV Referendum and changed the remit that the Boundary Commission operates under. I think that this parliament will go it&#39;s intended full term, but if David Cameron thinks that he has a good opportunity to go for a majority then especially if he thinks that AV would reduce the Conservatives chances he might go for an early General Election, perhaps using the argument that the Liberal Democrats have become impossible to work with.

I think and hope that AV will see the collapse of the 3 main parties, and something closer to the ideals of most of the people of this country, strong Defence and strong Criminal Justice policies and opposition to political correctness. An end to obsessions either with Public Corporations or Public Limited Companies. More favourable to public services being run by not for profit trusts with no shareholders and less interventionist in the labour market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13251734

'AV vote won't split coalition, say Clegg and Cameron'



Watch it all fall apart Nick if they think they can get an overall majority...and dump you.

The whole thing is far too complicated and involved for a simple person like me to be allowed to vote on such an important issue.


Oh no, wait, that was the Referendum on Europe wasn't it?

So when THEY want something we get a vote on it?

I'm not playing.

> opposition to political correctness

Please, I really am curious to know why anyone would think this to be an important part of a party's political platform.

TRiG.

Political correctness is limiting debate, re-writing language based on ideological linguistic notions rather than evolved language, on possible inferable interpretations not taking into account historic uses of terms. In many cases inventing new terms to attempt to describe things for which there are already words on the basis that existing words are considered discriminatory and then of course the new terms are changed because any discrimination doesn't relate to the word, but to the perception of the thing it is describing.

So if someone talks of people being short, calling them horizontally challenged instead really changes nothing except for messing people about because any discrimination relates to the lack of height not the exact term used; referring to someone as a chairperson rather than a chairman doesn't change anything in a meaningful way because the word man is being used as in mankind which is referring to the whole human species. Saying visually challenged or hearing impaired instead of partially blind or partially deaf, it's just saying the same thing with different words meaning exactly the same thing.

It's precise regulation of terms used which then quite a lot of people seem to take to extremes way beyond the set frameworks. I've heard people saying that if there was a man and a woman, that someone couldn't compliment one on their looks because they would be discriminating against the other. And then Harriet Harman, one of the chief drivers of much of the political correctness of recent times in the UK seems to feel it is fine to describe one of her fellow parliamentarians as "that Ginger Rodent".

And it doesn't actually change anything other than to take up a lot of time in people inventing it all and others paying lip service to them.

It's not that people shouldn't consider carefully what they are saying, but rather that there shouldn't be a straightjacket on it which frequently is the case and government needs to stop pushing this.

In fact a lot of PC is quite discriminatory. Suggest that internment should be introduced as an option against terrorists and organised criminals and frequently it is assumed that this is intended to discriminate against Muslims when in fact terrorists and organised criminals can come from any background and could be targeting anybody. Suggest that there should be more investment and more powers to the police and penal authorities and people suggest that somehow this is doing down the poor and oppressed when in fact the poor and oppressed are most likely to be victims of crime and to need help. It's reading into what people are saying things that were never said or intended and attempting to block off discussing wide ranges of things.

Hiya Michael and welcome to hootoo.

Part of the problem with all of the political correctness gone mad stuff is large amounts of it are fictional, simply invented by the more bigoted rags to sell newspapers to the ignorant. Horizontally challenged is a good example of that - it was a pure fantasy. Ditto your point about partially blind/deaf - I work with special needs kids and one of the official criteria for school action/school action plus (levels of support below a formal Statement) uses those exact words.

Generally impaired is preferred to challenged, but that's not formal and it's a more accurate description. Challenges can be overcome, blindness or deafness can't really - no matter how up for a challenge you are, you can't repair a damaged optic nerve. Plus what is the problem with addressing people how they prefer to be addressed?

>>And then Harriet Harman<<

Again, fictional. The whole Harriet Harperson stuff was started as a slander by (iirc) the Daily Mail.

>>Suggest that internment should be introduced as an option against terrorists and organised criminals and frequently it is assumed that this is intended to discriminate against Muslims when in fact terrorists and organised criminals can come from any background and could be targeting anybody.<<

Compare the numbers of Muslim men locked up for an extended period without charge and it's clear the new anti-terror laws are used against them far, far more than any other group.

Similarly look at the stats for the polices stop and search powers and see which groups were disproportionately targeted with them. I'll give you a clue - it's not white people.

Those aren't assumptions, they're facts that can be proven. Often the cry of political correctness is raised by those who are being racist and have been called on it - see my earlier statement about the bigoted rags who seem to hold the copyright on such behaviour.

Similarly look at the stats for the polices stop and search powers and see which groups were disproportionately targeted with them. I'll give you a clue - it's not white people.
Muslims come from a variety of countries, this includes recent converts from groups that historically have had low proportions of Muslims. The same with Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists. And Christians, Jews or Athiests for that matter.

No system is perfect, whatever is done something will go wrong, it is just a matter of doing the best that can be done, in exactly the same way as whatever method is used for selecting the government there will be problems from time to time and with any human devised system there will inevitably be flaws.

Often the cry of political correctness is raised by those who are being racist and have been called on it
Some people obviously are using it for their own purposes, in some cases to impose their own variant of a rival political correctness. That doesn't mean that because a lot of bad people oppose it that any opposition to it is automatically wrong.

"Similarly look at the stats for the polices stop and search powers and see which groups were disproportionately targeted with them. I'll give you a clue - it's not white people."
That bit was supposed to be in quotes.

I've never really understood what people can possibly have against political correctness, as properly understood - not as wildly and wilfully misrepresented by the tabloids. And I've never really understood why intelligent people can't work out that they're being lied to.

Back to the referendum, can I recommend this?

"Is your Cat confused about the referendum on the voting system on the 5th May?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk