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: 488

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by StephenBln on April 27, 2011 at 16:19

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 April 27, 2011 at 20:38

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? 

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.

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service