Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
So how are you voting on 5/5? Can Victor Vote Counter help?
I intend to vote, but I'm not sure I'm clear about my choice. What about you?
The Electoral Commission has produced a short(?) video to explain the difference between the two voting systems.
But I'm not sure how much that helps.........
So how what are the arguments? Campaigners in the referendum will, of course, be only too happy to explain why they think you should vote 'yes' (to use the 'alternative vote' system) or 'no' (to continue using the 'first past the post' system).
You can find out information about these campaign groups at:
Still no good? Try the quiz at who should you vote for or the Electoral Commission's booklet (attached below).
If none of that works, aaaw the hell with it, go flip a coin at random.org.
- Attachments:
-
-
England-accessible.pdf, 352 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
From Harringay Online's Facebook page:
Melibea Kalista suggetsed http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ - interesting to see the different effects on voter power in Hornsey & Tottenham constituencies.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark B on
-
That is what I used for this post Hugh
"It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting"
AV for me, but from my point of view the advertising (particularly the no2av) has been woeful.
Mark
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for posting all this; though it doesn't really make anything clearer to me at least I feel I've done some research. I agree that it's important to vote, but it's difficult when you can't quite decide which way to go.
The AV system looks much more complicated/lengthy and I think it would actually lead to an increase in tactical voting, rather than voting for your favourite. Also, wasn't it something similar which brought us the lovely Boris in the Mayoral Election?
To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about more coalitions either - certainly not if they are like the present one: a minority government shored up by a (very) minority party. Surely a fairer outcome would see something like a Con-Lab coalition, since these are the parties who won the most votes. But it's not really imaginable...
-
-
But it seems to me that the LDems have very little actual power or influence in this coalition - they have gone back on most of their election promises and stood up to the vicious onslaught on public spending not a jot. Many people voted for them so that they would NOT get a Conservative government, but what we have is in fact exactly that in terms of policies. Maybe we are just not used to coalitions as a tool for balancing power.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Whilst I agree that the post WWI resettlements were cock ups, don't you first send in the settlers and then "leap to their defence" with your army?
Sorry, back on topic. What is not decisive about an AV election?
All the arguments AGAINST AV could also be applied to democracy itself; expensive, anti-establishment, leads to coalitions, gives minorities a voice... etc
If you really have no idea, just look at the people who want you to vote NO...
-
-
Don't you listen to them Billy. I think a rebellious conservative is an important part of local socialism. I draw the line at Justin referring to himself as Justinian though.
-
-
They do dont they. I guess it is to do with it being more open now. It's going to make it much harder to follow things isnt it.
M
-
Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on
-
Hope you mean overnight commenting, Billy. We ain't done no editing!
-
-
I think Billy means overnight editing by the commentators. That's what I meant. I can delete my own comments yes? And people did that. Sure it was mainly off thread but it makes the small sections of other stuff which refer to it look odd.
-
-
I've really been thinking hard on the back of this post. I wasn't at all sure which way to go, and I've changed sides more than once based on different information/interpretations.
Currently, my thinking is that if we don't give AV a chance, we'll never know if it's a fairer system for electing government. So it's a gamble, but perhaps not such a massive shake-up of how things already function. I don't see it giving more seats to smaller parties any more effectively than FPTP - they will almost certainly be eliminated at first round and the votes divvied up amongst the big players. So it's not really Proportional Representation, in that many people could still end up for example voting Green without any Green MPs being elected.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
I deleted my comments.. because after a bit of thought.. decided it probably wasn't good for me to comment.. But, deleting them caused a bit of confusion so here they are again:
1/ answering Maddy
@Maddy .. I don't live in the UK anymore, so perhaps it's not right for me to add my two-cents worth..
AV is/ or should be just a stepping stone for the UK into the post-1945 democratic world..
No, the new system won't IMO lead to more tatical voting because in a PR system every vote, everywhere in the country has an equal value, which isn't the case in the current system. I lived and voted in the Woodford/Wanstead const. (now carved up by the tories to create Duncan-Smith's safe seat of Woodford/Chingford) for many years, and my vote for the Labour party was always a wasted vote. It didn't matter if I voted or not, my vote wouldn't be counted.. The reverse is the same is in other constituencies!
For nearly the past 30 years, I've lived in a country with PR and I have to say the system works well. We've had coalitions of all make ups and we're likely to get another version, not yet seen, next time around with a Green/red alliance.
BTW, This system was hoisted upon the Germans by the British and American allies in 1949, exactly because it stops one party having overall power. The benefits are clear to see and Germany is still Europe most succesful country.
It seems to me that in Britain, governments of both persuasions spend more time reversing the last's changes rather than pushing forward. Hence, in my view, Britain's poor showing to it's relative wealth.
If you've ever been to a business seminar, you'll be well aware that the first thing you're taught is that co-operation is better than an adversary system in business as well as in government.
Therefore I would advocate voting for AV..
Believe me, those politicians against, are quite prepared to go years without any cake at all, because when in power, the get as much as they desire. That can't be good for the country and as we've seen, they try and get away with as much as they can.
In a truly representative sytem, 15% of the votes, should mean 15% of the seats..
The reason the wasn't a Lab /LD coalition was that the LD wouldn't with Brown and he wasn't prepared to work with them.. So the country ended up with the present government..
Labour threw away the chance..
2/replying maddy
Yes Maddy.. I understand.. But that has nothing really to do with the system, more to do with the party..
Generally here, parties declare beforehand, with which party they want to govern.. It's not a game .. it's a serious thing..
Sometimes the British (tory lead) press try to debase the whole thing.. because they are intent on keeping power for those who carry out their wishes..
3/ answering Maddy
Oh yes, just another, last point from me..
I get very angry when the press use negative terms like 'horse-trading' for the negotiations..
All parties come to the table with votes and constituents of equal value. All want to get their policies and ideas to improve the country through.
There's nothing negative in that.. that's the name of the game.. and so what if no PM in the future can't call a war when they like, like Thatcher or Blair.. That can only be for the good..
Thirty years later I'm still bewildered on what British interests in the South Atlantic are.. If the Argentines colonised the Isle of Wight .. the Brits wouldn't be too keen on it either.. would they.. ?
answering Will Hoyle Billy Hole
@billy hole .. you mean white faced CoE Brits.. Thatcher decided rather than run an election campaign that she'd have a war and win the next election at a time when she was down in the polls..
Unfortunately, a few years later she didn't go to war for the yellow faced non CoE British in Hong Kong, who she turned over to a communist state.. the wants weren't paramount there, were they.. ?
Yes, you might be right or not about Germany's success, so why is Italy always used as an example of PR and how bad it is, when there is such a shining example next door?
And even more exciting will be to the see the tories faces if it gets through and the +heat hits the fan re: repealing the hunting ban.
BTW, *silly question*, you do sound very much like Will Hoyle and the name is unusually similar.. I wonder...
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
AV is/ or should be just a stepping stone for the UK into the post-1945 democratic world..
Steve's right - though of course some peripheral and former components of the UK have gone past that silly little stepping stone for dummies and the electorally timorous long ago - except in those elections dictated by Westminster. Think Celtic Fringe. England (not UK) has the problem, as in that Cautionary Tale from that most English of cautionary tale-tellers, Hilaire Belloc: 'Remember to cling onto Nurse / For fear you'll end with Something Worse' (I quote from a fading memory!).
Or, to go farther afield, since England is the Mother of Parliaments (according to a really bright Brit called John Bright), what was the point of all those centuries of Empire if today's successors of Bright's Whigs and Liberals are ready to settle for so feeble an imitation of real Proportional Representation, copied from the less enlightened of her former colonies (Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea) when even a casual glance towards the Antipodes would have provided a much better exemplar in New Zealanders' struggle, after two referendums/a, towards their current Mixed Member Proportional version of PR (a la Germany, I think)? It seems to have helped them to scrap the old two-party dominance but it may be that they made a rush to judgement in choosing the MMP version rather than the STV system of those much more enlightened electorates of Ireland (North and South). Kiwis, however, have another bite at the PR apple in their third referendum later this year so I'm sure they'll follow the example of really bright ex-colonies into the STV camp. Would it be asking too much of our Mother of Parliaments to treat the forthcoming referendum as indicative only (as they did in NZ back in the 1990s) before laying real stepping stones towards a true PR referendum to be held alongside the 2015 General Election?
I wouldn't hold my breath, judging by the way England's electorate are treated as incorrigible dummies both in the Victor Video above and in a similar 'helpful' 'discussion' on this evening's PM programme on Radio 4. I suppose it's called the "PM Programme" in obeisance to Cameron?
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
