UK: AV Referendum, your vote?

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: However, that is irrelevant if you've not taken any notice of the campaigning - which begs the question, why are you voting "No"? Because I am happy with the current system and I dislike change. I am anti PR too. I take it you are in a safe seat and your chosen cadidate/party always wins then. No

Not a position I can understand then, but evidently you do, so fair enough.

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: However, that is irrelevant if you've not taken any notice of the campaigning - which begs the question, why are you voting "No"? Because I am happy with the current system and I dislike change. I am anti PR too. I take it you are in a safe seat and your chosen cadidate/party always wins then. No Not a position I can understand then, but evidently you do, so fair enough. Sometimes the people i vote for win...sometimes they don't. It does favour the two party system of course so if you vote green I guess you got no chance. Would  AV change that though?

In some cases it would, in most it would not. If the Greens were the second party in a Conservative constituency then it is just possible that AV could tip the balance if the Labour and other socialist party's candidates were eliminated. What AV does do is ensure that whoever gets elected for a constituency as the tacit support of at least 51% of the voters, at the present that figure could be as low as 21% (if there were five more or less equal candidates). While I'm slowly warming to the Greens because they are close to being the most reasoned socialist party at the moment, I cannot support their ecological policies. The real situation is that The Greens are not the second party most constituencies, the Lib Dems are.

Edited by Dean - May 02 2011 at 14:59

But then if you are of the mindset that you don't want anyone but your first choice, then you can still only vote for one party.

Yes but there's a lot of difference between a Socialist candidate and a Right wing candidate.

The only message I can find in the Yes campaign is that they want AV to combat the problem of not enough people voting. So why not bring in Compulsory Voting rather than reform the whole voting system? 

Edited by topographicbroadways - May 02 2011 at 16:47

Snow Dog wrote: topographicbroadways wrote: The only message I can find in the Yes campaign is that they want AV to combat the problem of not enough people voting. So why not bring in Compulsory Voting rather than reform the whole voting system?  What about the right not to vote? As soon as its compulsive  I stop.

James wrote: Yes but there's a lot of difference between a Socialist candidate and a Right wing candidate.

Eh? What are you on about?

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: You may have a point. But I don't understand why anyone would want a second or third choice. Do you want to vote for your man or not? I don't really understand "Well if he doesn't get in I suppose he will do" Besides that it still leaves my resitence to change. Yep - that's one of the arguments put forward by the No campaign, and it's specious.   We make these kinds of choices all the time. Have you never said "If you're going to the shops could you get me a bottle of Coke, and if they don't have that I'll have a Tango" or something similar?   That is a specious argument. Soft drinks aren't politics. But if I go for Coke, I won't buy something else.(unless it's Pepsi}

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: You may have a point. But I don't understand why anyone would want a second or third choice. Do you want to vote for your man or not? I don't really understand "Well if he doesn't get in I suppose he will do" Besides that it still leaves my resitence to change. Yep - that's one of the arguments put forward by the No campaign, and it's specious.   We make these kinds of choices all the time. Have you never said "If you're going to the shops could you get me a bottle of Coke, and if they don't have that I'll have a Tango" or something similar?   That is a specious argument. Soft drinks aren't politics. But if I go for Coke, I won't buy something else.(unless it's Pepsi} It's far from being a specious argument because it's not an argument - it's an analogy - if the soft-drink analogy doesn't work for you I'm sure you can think of a similar analogy where you give a second option if the first is unavailable.

akamaisondufromage wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: James wrote: Yes but there's a lot of difference between a Socialist candidate and a Right wing candidate. Eh? What are you on about? I think I know what he means.   I think he's saying that if you went to a shop for Coke you wouldn't come back with a Tango.