Three Towns Forum
Members' Lounge => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Ian on February 27, 2011, 08:57:43 am
-
Post in here about views for, against and undecided with regard to the proposed changes in our Parliamentary voting system.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55 (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55)
http://votenotoav.wordpress.com/about/ (http://votenotoav.wordpress.com/about/)
http://www.politicsresources.net/election.htm (http://www.politicsresources.net/election.htm)
http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/choosing-electoral-system.cfm (http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/choosing-electoral-system.cfm)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/20/andrew-rawnsley-electoral-reform (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/20/andrew-rawnsley-electoral-reform)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-alternative-vote-baby-ad)
-
Of course we want this reform.
An electoral system like Italy's is exactly what we need.
-
:D
-
It's going to be interesting ,however; Australia has used AV for more than 90 years. It has resulted in just one hung parliament in 38 elections. First past the post in Britain produced hung parliaments last year, in February 1974, in 1923 and 1929 and twice in 1910. It has also produced parliaments which became as good as hung after the elections of 1950, October 1974 and 1992.
Maybe we really need STV :-))
-
It would definitely be to the benefit of an Independent Candidate !!
-
It's going to be interesting ,however; Australia has used AV for more than 90 years. It has resulted in just one hung parliament in 38 elections. First past the post in Britain produced hung parliaments last year, in February 1974, in 1923 and 1929 and twice in 1910. It has also produced parliaments which became as good as hung after the elections of 1950, October 1974 and 1992.
From what I've seen in my liftime, ALL Parliaments need to be hung! _))*
-
:D :D :D
-
Politicians are like nappies, they require to be changed regularly, And for the same reason, :D
-
Quiggs! A man of few words.... but when he posts, its worth reading !! Nice one... L0L L0L
-
Oh that hurts! _))* _))* _))*
-
How AV works...
Alternative Vote System : What it is & why you need to vote on May 5th for AV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FstA45lxgFs#ws)
-
We, the undersigned, have made donations to the cross-party NO to AV campaign. Like over a thousand donors, we support this campaign because the Alternative Vote is over-complicated, unfair and an expensive distraction from the more important challenges facing our country.
AV would give disproportionate influence to supporters of minority parties at the expense of the open and simple system we have at present. Our concern therefore is that a move to AV would undermine confidence in our electoral process.
Signed
Lord Leach – Chairman of the NO to AV campaign
Peter Cruddas – Co-Treasurer of the NO to AV campaign
Andrew Sells – Co-Treasurer of the NO to AV campaign
Parliamentary Labour Party First Past the Post Group
ASLEF – The Train Drivers’ Union
Community – The Union for Life
GMB – General Union
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise
Mick Davis
Lord Kirkham
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG
Lord Fink of Northwood
Andrew Cook
Mark McDonald – Human Rights Barrister & former candidate for Labour Party Treasurer
Matthew Elliott, Campaign Director of NO to AV, said:
“The donors to the No campaign – drawn from many sources including private citizens, large and small businesses and trade unions – contrast with the two very large donors to the Yes campaign: the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (the biggest single donors to the Liberal Democrats) and the Electoral Reform Society, which holds a near-monopoly on the administration, explanation and introduction of elections.”
“The NO campaign were the first to announce that, in the interests of transparency, we would be declaring donations to our campaign ahead of the required date.”
“The broad range of people supporting us contrasts with the narrow financial and political interests of the two large donors to the Yes to AV campaign. Now this information has been made public, voters can make their mind up about the motivations of those pushing for a change of our current voting system.”
The full list of donors of over £7,500 to the NO to AV campaign, that will be reported to the Electoral Commission as part of our Referendum campaign (see note 2), is as follows:
Peter Cruddas 400,000
Jonathan Wood 100,000
Michael Davis 100,000
Lord (John) Sainsbury 100,000
Michael Farmer 100,000
John Caudwell 75,000
Lord (Philip) Harris 75,000
Lord (Graham) Kirkham 75,000
FIL Investment Management Ltd 50,000
Mark Samworth 50,000
James Lyle 50,000
Sir Donald Gosling 50,000
John Spurling 50,000
The Funding Corporation Limited 50,000
IPGL Limited 50,000
Edwin Healey 50,000
David Mayhew 30,000
Christopher Rokos 30,000
Lord (Stanley) Fink 28,000
Andrew Sells 25,000
Lord (Charles G) Leach 25,000
Lord (Simon) Wolfson 25,000
Killik & Co LLP 25,000
JC Bamford Excavators Ltd 25,000
Ivor Braka 25,000
Lord (David) Wolfson 25,000
Jeremy Hosking 25,000
John Nash 25,000
Arbuthnot Banking Group plc 20,000
Nicholas Jenkins 20,000
Hugh Sloane 15,000
David Ord 10,000
Andrew Brannon 10,000
William Cook Holdings Ltd 10,000
Peter Hargreaves 10,000
Rhoderick Swire 10,000
Charles Caminada 10,000
Naguib Kheraj 10,000
GMB Union 10,000
Richard Hoare 10,000
Robin Fleming 10,000
Campaigners in the referendum must report their campaign spending to the Electoral Commission at the end of the referendum period. The Referendum campaign spending return must include the records of spending plus donations received over £7,500 that were used towards campaign spending. This will also include an independent auditor’s certificate. This must be reported to the Commission within 6 months of the end of the referendum.
-
Without AV the minor parties, who do represent a proportion of the people, will never be heard or be able to help infuence the future course of the country. Without political parties we would end up with a dictatorship. With 2 parties we end up with massive swings from one set of policies to another. With three there is a chance of decent representation. With even more we end up with Democracy, even though the country may be run by a coalition.
As far as I am concerned this would result in good sensible policies, a stable Government and a stable and successful country. ZXZ
-
I'm always suspicious of anyone who gives money on these occasions. You don't give good money for owt. What's the hidden reason?
-
Not in Yorkshire anyway! Z**
-
Its nonsense to suggest that AV gives a stable government.
Italy have had a similar system to AV since WWII, they have had something like 65 governments in 60 years... ie, totally unstable, and reliant on the support of exteme nutcase parties to get any laws passed.
It brings corrupt 'horse-traders' like Berlusconi to power, wasting time building petty and worthless alliances, when Governments should be focussing on the big economic challenges of the day.
-
How dare you...Berlusconi is a great man. Just ask Ruby the Heart Stealer... Z**
-
Italy have had a similar system to AV since WWII, they have had something like 65 governments in 60 years... ie, totally unstable, and reliant on the support of exteme nutcase parties to get any laws passed.
I suspect that's more to do with Italy and the culture, rather than AV itself. The fact is that almost every European country has a form of AV, and most of those are working at least as well as our country. To win an election with AV, remember, it's the first candidate that gets more than 50% of the votes. That - at least - provides a much better representation of democracy than our current system. Virtually every government in the UK in the last 50 years has been elected by a minority.
-
The first candidate passing 50% of the vote is a laudable theory, but that very rarely happens in the UK.
Therefore AV, and all systems like it will throw up coalition after coalition governments.
Therefore all manifestos will be worthless, as all parties will enter into a series of compromises, leaving the electorate disatisfied.
What would be wrong with making all Manifestos LEGALLY binding after election? That might focus a few of these parties in future.
-
The first candidate passing 50% of the vote is a laudable theory, but that very rarely happens in the UK.
Which, of itself, presupposes that something's not working properly, surely?
Therefore AV, and all systems like it will throw up coalition after coalition governments.
No; AV will ensure that those elected represent more of the population than the current system. That actually strengthens the hands of those elected, ensures a much more equitable representation and forces politicians of all parties to compromise, thus preventing the sort of extremism which can easily damage the country. And let's not forget countries such as Denmark, who haven't had a majority government in living memory, yet enjoy a higher standard of living than we do. And they're not the only ones.
Therefore all manifestos will be worthless, as all parties will enter into a series of compromises, leaving the electorate disatisfied.
But as your subsequent comment implies, they already are... ;D
What would be wrong with making all Manifestos LEGALLY binding after election? That might focus a few of these parties in future.
Because the only way to do that is through...Parliament, who could easily revoke it once elected.
-
Must agree with Ian. It is important that all the population are represented and by selecting candidates in order of preference it indicates agreement to each of them and their principles. If you only favour ONE party then all you have to do is just vote for ONE individual. It is that simple.
I know that if my selected choice does not win my second or third might which means that I will at least be represented by someone to whom I do not object. $good$
-
For an incredibly simple explanation of why the current system is just wrong, I copied this:
"FPTP is unfair because the winner only has to have the most votes, not a majority. To take an extreme, let's say there are one hundred candidates and one hundred voters. If just two voters vote for candidate number 1, and the remaining ninety-eight each vote for a different (i.e. unique) candidate, the results would be as follows:-
candidate 1 2 votes
candidates 2-99 1 vote each
candidate 100 0 votes
Candidate 1 is elected even though 98% of the electorate didn't want him/her."
AV - whilst being far from an ideal form of voting system - at least means that the eventual winner will achieve more than 50% of the vote in any election.
-
What happens if everyone decides not to pick a second or third choice & just votes for their first choice?
(which is what I would do)
-
You finish up with the same as usual - first past the post! Just as per Ian's comment above. L0L