Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Andy B on 12 April 2011, 20:16:32
-
What voting system do we want? I'm leaning to a 'Yes' vote but not sure :-/ :-/
-
Personally I have no idea on this one. And I have little enthusiasm to find any information. I think I reached that point in my life where I find voting a chore, and ineffective.
I probably will vote but it will leave a sour taste.
-
im still undecided either way the
crooks mps will probably gain something whichever way it goes :(
-
AV = a vote for mediocrity IMHO .. :(
No need to try and win .. just get as many "2nd" votes as you can .. and the so called "adverts" always show that "A" eventualy wins ... actually in real life "B" or "C" can win just as easily, with hardly any "1st" votes.
If it was so good, wouldn't more countries use it ??? and why is it that ALL the countries that use have bodged coalition governments ?
-
AV = a vote for mediocrity IMHO .. :(
No need to try and win .. just get as many "2nd" votes as you can .. and the so called "adverts" always show that "A" eventualy wins ... actually in real life "B" or "C" can win just as easily, with hardly any "1st" votes.
If it was so good, wouldn't more countries use it ??? and why is it that ALL the countries that use have bodged coalition governments ?
A good valid argument ............ :y
I'm still undecided :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/
-
I was going t make the same post Andy.. ::) ::)
I really have no idea, and I do not really understand this AV thing, even with Entwoods explanation... ::) :-/ :-[
-
I was going t make the same post Andy.. ::) ::)
I really have no idea, and I do not really understand this AV thing, even with Entwoods explanation... ::) :-/ :-[
The Yes (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55) campaign seems better presented than the No (http://www.no2av.org/why-vote-no/) :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/
-
Just to add some details .. AV is used in 3 countries in the world ..
Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea
WOW ... impressive support for such a "brilliant" system don't you think ??
Our present "first past the post" system is used in over 50 countries ..... so why change ?? It's not broken so don't try and fix it .... EXCEPT that AV gives the "little parties" .. like Lib Dems, Greens, BNP .. more power so they want it.
Main danger is apathy ... most folks don't understand or care .. so the few that do will vote "yes" and may get it in "by default" .. :(
2 sides ..
NO - http://www.no2av.org/
Yes - http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
Have a read .. it is the future of UK voting .. and therefore the way we are governed that is at stake .. :(
-
It'll make no difference in real terms.
-
It'll make no difference in real terms.
Unfortunately I believe you are very wrong .. it will lead to many more "hung" parliaments where the minority parties have too much power as they broker "deals" ... :( Always ends with weak governments that are always looking over their shoulders at the minority parties wishes... even when those parties have miniscule support
-
i cant see the point in voting anymore, all the mps are out for what they can get and the eu tell us what we can and cannot do.
-
I can see a lot of UKIP Cons
But unfortunately a lot of
Socialist Striker Lab
Green Lab
Independant Lab
Here is a good example we had 2 right of centre and about 7 or so left of centre, luckily we got rid of the lefty.
-
If you wish to see a talking shop with deals being cobbled together to achieve a forced consensus, vote ‘Yes’.
If you wish minor parties to have a disproportionate say in legislative policy, vote ‘Yes’.
If you wish to see a posturing executive operated by gimlet-eyed functionaries betraying their core values to maintain their grip on power at all costs, vote ‘Yes’.
If you wish to see this country descend into the miasma of coalition politics, where the incumbents will be all but impossible to discharge, vote ‘Yes’.
In short, should you wish to see a cluster opps of those wishing to represent the people of this nation in some semblance of democratic integrity, vote ‘Yes’.
Should you not wish tom see any of the foregoing and hope that strong majority will once more return to this country then vote ‘No’.
Remember always - Vote early - Vote often and make sure those votes fall into the 'No' category.
-
It'll make no difference in real terms.
Unfortunately I believe you are very wrong .. it will lead to many more "hung" parliaments where the minority parties have too much power as they broker "deals" ... :( Always ends with weak governments that are always looking over their shoulders at the minority parties wishes... even when those parties have miniscule support
Yeah, even i undrstand that but the previous fully elected governments have bit by bit bought us to our knees. We have no industry. Sheffield steel has gone to Corus now Tata or outo compu...ask yourself why? No engineering, no ship bulding, no mining....
WHY?
-
It'll make no difference in real terms.
Unfortunately I believe you are very wrong .. it will lead to many more "hung" parliaments where the minority parties have too much power as they broker "deals" ... :( Always ends with weak governments that are always looking over their shoulders at the minority parties wishes... even when those parties have miniscule support
Yeah, even i undrstand that but the previous fully elected governments have bit by bit bought us to our knees. We have no industry. Sheffield steel has gone to Corus now Tata or outo compu...ask yourself why? No engineering, no ship bulding, no mining....
WHY?
Because the "left wing luvvies" prevented the business men from doing what they do best .. running successful businesses.
Steel was a going concern until nationalised, as were many other concerns.
Nationalisation destroyed the engineering base of the country as it removed "accountability" from the board room, but inserted "power to the workers" .... whose ability to organise a demonstration was exemplary .. but whose ability to run a company was woeful.
Unfortunately the idea that the "workers know best" still exists .. but now in the Public Sector Unions.
-
The "Why?" is easy:
Are you (or anyone else in this country) willing to work for the same wages as a guy living in a shack in India or China?
-
not bothered, all parties (big 3) are just as bad as each other
-
Though this reminds me.. Mr Conservative (no idea what his real name is) came around the other day - local elections and all that - to ask if I'd be voting for him..
It took all my restraint to resist telling him I really couldn't care less and that I think all politicians are as bent as a nine bob note ;D
-
Though this reminds me.. Mr Conservative (no idea what his real name is) came around the other day - local elections and all that - to ask if I'd be voting for him..
It took all my restraint to resist telling him I really couldn't care less and that I think all politicians are as bent as a nine bob note ;D
bent as a nine bob note
As was Peter North - according to the Bear. :( :(
-
Though this reminds me.. Mr Conservative (no idea what his real name is) came around the other day - local elections and all that - to ask if I'd be voting for him..
It took all my restraint to resist telling him I really couldn't care less and that I think all politicians are as bent as a nine bob note ;D
bent as a nine bob note
As was Peter North - according to the Bear. :( :(
;D ;D
-
I agree with Entwood and Den. AV Would result in coalition govt at every election, with minor parties holding the balance of power. The tail would be wagging the dog. We would lose forever, the possibility of having a strong govt. with a healthy majority who take the country in a certain direction, and if we dont agree with that direction we get the chance to kick them out and replace them with something entirely different after 5 years. I know this system has been badly corrupted in recent times, but there is still a chance it can be put right. With AV that chance would be gone forever.
I say this as a someone who votes for a minority party. My own self/ short term interest would say vote AV, but I thinks its wrong, and would be very bad for the country in the long term.
Im wondering what odds I could get at the bookies, as I reckon it aint going to happen. The English dont like big sudden changes.
The only chance it has of getting voted in, is if there is enormous apathy, and the Notting Hill Luvvy types who support it mobilise themselves in a big way.
-
The "Why?" is easy:
Are you (or anyone else in this country) willing to work for the same wages as a guy living in a shack in India or China?
No of course i would'nt why should i? That's not the point, what a silly question. ::)
-
With you on this one Nig. I always vote then if i don't like whats happening i can shout about it, if you don't vote you can't complain when the S,.t hits the fan
There is a little saying K.I.S.S
-
To be honest, it's a bloody hard one to decide. The FPTP system we have practically ensures we are stuck with the three main parties, for whom I have litte respect. The reason being that people who are swayed by the arguments of the minor parties believe that, since there is no chance of them winning, there is no point in voting for them. AV would give these minor parties more of a chance to break the ConLabLib mould. Yes, it would result in more horse trading and produce less stable governments but, as a UKIP supporter, I would love to see the idea of the 'Big Three' torn asunder.
Difficult one, in any event. Might abstain. :-/
-
I didn't realise steel was profitable before nationalisation - I thought they only nationalised basket case companies.
-
I didn't realise steel was profitable before nationalisation - I thought they only nationalised basket case companies.
You mean like the railways? ;D
-
To be honest, it's a bloody hard one to decide. The FPTP system we have practically ensures we are stuck with the three main parties, for whom I have litte respect. The reason being that people who are swayed by the arguments of the minor parties believe that, since there is no chance of them winning, there is no point in voting for them. AV would give these minor parties more of a chance to break the ConLabLib mould. Yes, it would result in more horse trading and produce less stable governments but, as a UKIP supporter, I would love to see the idea of the 'Big Three' torn asunder.
Difficult one, in any event. Might abstain. :-/
[/highlight]
I was interested in your post, but abstaining looses all respect..... :( :(
-
To be honest, it's a bloody hard one to decide. The FPTP system we have practically ensures we are stuck with the three main parties, for whom I have litte respect. The reason being that people who are swayed by the arguments of the minor parties believe that, since there is no chance of them winning, there is no point in voting for them. AV would give these minor parties more of a chance to break the ConLabLib mould. Yes, it would result in more horse trading and produce less stable governments but, as a UKIP supporter, I would love to see the idea of the 'Big Three' torn asunder.
Difficult one, in any event. Might abstain. :-/
[/highlight]
I was interested in your post, but abstaining looses all respect..... :( :(
I take your point, but I simply cannot decide which way to vote. There are merits, and demerits, to both sides of the argument. I have always thought that active abstention (as happens in board meetings) or "none of the above" can actually be a logical stance. Why should you be forced to choose between two alternatives, if neither fits the bill? :-/
-
I agree Nick. Abstention is a legitimate stance. None participation due to apathy isnt. :y
I also think that the biggest winners (in the short to medium term) from a yes vote would quite possibly be the Greens, and the damage they have already caused with their very limited poll success has been scary. ;)
-
I agree Nick. Abstention is a legitimate stance. None participation due to apathy isnt. :y
I also think that the biggest winners (in the short to medium term) from a yes vote would quite possibly be the Greens, and the damage they have already caused with their very limited poll success has been scary. ;)
Yep, very valid points Albs. I've always been of the opinion that, in all elections there should be a box for "None of the above". That would ensure that those who are willing to make the effort to vote are given the opportunity to show their displeasure at the lack of options available. :y
-
AV, despite what I thought earlier, actually wouldn't benefit the wee diddy parties like the BNP, they would need 50% of voters in any given constituency to at least put them down as an option - I don't think theres a constituency in the UK where that would happen - so bye bye BNP ;D
-
How many times have you heard someone say "I'll vote x to stop y getting in. No point voting for anyone else as it would be a wasted vote."
If that really is a prevalent as I suspect then AV is the way to go.
Do people really vote say Conservative to get rid of Labour OR Labour to get rid of Conservatives?
Perhaps more coalitions are the way forward. maybe politics comes of age?
-
My worry is this:
Now this is only a scenario (as clearly the Lib Dems are struggling).
Say we have
1) Mr Tory
2) Mr Labour
Mr Tory Votes
1 - Conservative
2 - Lib Dem
Mr Labour Votes
1 - Labour
2 - Lib Dem
The result is not a great one as the one that received no first choices gets in.
Plus, its got to cost a load more because its WAY more complex to count the votes!
-
Just to add some details .. AV is used in 3 countries in the world ..
Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea
WOW ... impressive support for such a "brilliant" system don't you think ??
Our present "first past the post" system is used in over 50 countries ..... so why change ?? It's not broken so don't try and fix it .... EXCEPT that AV gives the "little parties" .. like Lib Dems, Greens, BNP .. more power so they want it.
Main danger is apathy ... most folks don't understand or care .. so the few that do will vote "yes" and may get it in "by default" .. :(
2 sides ..
NO - http://www.no2av.org/
Yes - http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
Have a read .. it is the future of UK voting .. and therefore the way we are governed that is at stake .. :(
Nail on head Nige. :y
-
Just to add some details .. AV is used in 3 countries in the world ..
Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea
WOW ... impressive support for such a "brilliant" system don't you think ??
Our present "first past the post" system is used in over 50 countries ..... so why change ?? It's not broken so don't try and fix it .... EXCEPT that AV gives the "little parties" .. like Lib Dems, Greens, BNP .. more power so they want it.
Main danger is apathy ... most folks don't understand or care .. so the few that do will vote "yes" and may get it in "by default" .. :(
2 sides ..
NO - http://www.no2av.org/
Yes - http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
Have a read .. it is the future of UK voting .. and therefore the way we are governed that is at stake .. :(
Nail on head Nige. :y
First past the post works in those countries where you have two main parties (like Britain used to) nowadays we have 3 viable main parties - remember Labour got a landslide in '97 yet barely secured 40% of the popular vote....hardly warranted a landslide in seats did it? and the LibDems regulary poll 30% odd but dont get anthying like 30% of the seats :o
Ironically because of the coalition govt, on the brink of AV LibDems vote has collapsed, so its a moot point for a few decades :-?
-
Alternative Vote yes or no?
my view is
1. No
2. Yes
3. don't know
::)
-
if the referendum doesn't get a clear result, will we end up with a system based on our second choice?
;)
-
if the referendum doesn't get a clear result, will we end up with a system based on our second choice?
;)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
if the referendum doesn't get a clear result, will we end up with a system based on our second choice?
;)
Priceless, Egg! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Apparently, the Electoral Reform Society, which stands to make 'loadsamoney' from a Yes vote, and is funded by the taxpayer, has been donating to the Yes campaign.
Think I'll vote No, then. ;) :y