Harringay online

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.

 


Views: 619

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on April 27, 2011 at 20:57

The establishment tried to split the anti-FPP vote in NZ by providing four alternatives. I remember the maths nerds discussing STV as the best but the anti-FPP people decided to plump for MMP as the easiest to understand. I remember we called it More Maoris in Parliament and STV was a bit like STD.

 

If you want a good reason to vote for AV, just look at the people telling you not to. This was Murray Ball's advice over MMP and the only thing I can remember of the campaign.

Permalink Reply by Malc B on April 28, 2011 at 13:53

Hmm - I always thought the way that it was done in NZ was the best way.  

There was a first, indicative, referendum which  asked two questions: the first was: do you want to stick with FPP, or have something else.  Then the second question asked if FPP is replaced, what should it be replaced with, and then had a range of options. So it removed the possibility for the spoilers to split the vote, as well as providing a range of options, not this silly choice between two silly systems.

 

Then, the next year, there was a further (binding) referendum between the winning system (which turned out to be MMP) and the status quo (FPP). 

 

(Disclaimer: I was one of the pro-STV maths nerds, but still quite like MMP). 

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on April 29, 2011 at 22:22
Oh, you're probably right. I liked the pro-STV maths nerds.
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on April 28, 2011 at 17:49

Billy Hole wrote:

You're being naughty on HK V Falklands - teensy matter of a 99 year lease and the Sino-British joint declaration!

No, the lease that was running out was only for the 'New Territories' - Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (the finanacial districts and centre) were British..  but hey,  that's all OT..

 

You may keep trying to talk it all done- the same old tactics.. But I hope and think, this time we'll get it..

Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on April 28, 2011 at 18:45

The contrast between the treatment/support shown to Falkland Islanders and those who had to leave Montserrat after the volcanic eruptions is stark.

Permalink Reply by Alison P on April 27, 2011 at 22:09
I am going to vote for, on the grounds that it is better than what we have already (even though it is not in itself the answer). I have no problem at all with MPs who have the support of less than half of their constituents (those who vote anyway...) not getting elected automatically, and I think AV better reflects the realities of politics in the 21st century. Personally, I would prefer something that tries to be explicitly proportional, but this to me is better than what we have.
Permalink Reply by Mark B on April 28, 2011 at 8:35

I agree. I think it will be more representative and our MP can't be wrong can he?

 

Deep down though, what I think wrong with politics in the 21st century is that someone like Sayeeda Warsi can be made a baroness and a government cabinet member despite being specifically strongly rejected by the electorate in 2005 after producing allegedly homophobic election material. From being made a life peer it is only a short step to her making my teeth grate on Question Time. And apparently on all sides of the house there is a lot of clear evidence for similar "patronage".

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Cassidy on April 28, 2011 at 12:27

AV for me.

 

The no campaign sums up for me exactly why I must vote YES. I don't particularly like Nick Clegg, but the way they can attack him so nastily and still talk to him, I find it difficult to understand that and I don't think it's healthy.

 

Tactical voting is a nonsense... I much prefer to vote for who I actually barely believe in, then go with the 'other' less inspiring options.

Permalink Reply by Tim Caines on May 1, 2011 at 22:41

I'm voting NO to AV.

 

I know most of you would not be surprised but I feel AV will just be a fudge. Keep it simple - with FPTP, its much easier to chuck out a bad MP. Sadly, no system is good enough though to get rid of Lammy! ;-)  

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on May 3, 2011 at 21:41

And here we have yet another reason to vote YES. Thanks Tim.

Permalink Reply by Mark B on May 4, 2011 at 7:31

I just wanted to tell you Tim that you are wrong. I am surprised at your choice. Especially that you seem to give a reason that is based on the fact that it is too complicated. (That is how I understand your "keep it simple".)

Key stage 1 of the education system has outcomes where children aged 5 demonstrate they can make choices and rank things in terms of preference. My 5 yr old certainly can.

As for the counting being too complicated as Jonathan Harri said in April  If you get the X factor then you'll get AV. Personally I have never watched X factor but as a politician I am sure you have your finger on the pulse.

I like Mr Growbags pointer to the impartial summary Doc link below: As Mr Growbag says on page two there is an overall summary. Here are two of the statements on that page for people who don't download it:

"AV would uphold the principle of “one person, one vote”. Every voter would still be treated equally; each vote would count only once in deciding who is elected in each constituency."

and

"AV would not cost much to implement."

I choose those two only because they cover the main points of the leaflet the No to AV campaign were kind enough to send me. (As a coincidence they also cover two of the points Mr Cameron argued in his woeful interview on the R4 Today prog on 03 May).

If you want to see who is funding the campaigns then the Guardian has listed the major donors here. Analysis here.

63% of Yes 2 AV funding comes from two charities the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and the Electoral Reform Society.

In contrast as Polly Curtis writes:

Among around 50 donors to the NOtoAV campaign are several high-profile City figures, including hedge fund financiers, bankers and businessmen

If you read on you see as well there are Russian Financiers. Why would they be funding such a campaign?

 

So, one side appears to be funded mainly by NGOs with open and public aims, and the other - the one you support - is,  well, not. I wonder why there is such a difference?

 

AV is not complicated and I obviously am voting YES. Like John says. thanks Tim.

 

Permalink Reply by Hugh on May 2, 2011 at 11:55

Thanks to Mr Growbag for adding a link to his event listing of to a pdf of a briefing Reading University which he describes as "quick, impartial summary of what a change would and would not do (independent from either campaign)".

 

 

RSS

Advertising

© 2026   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service