Jump to content

Scottlish Elections


Fistle1876
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 310
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

dont know if i am going to vote for the snp or stab myself in the eye with a rust fork :thumbdown:

 

Why don't you vote SNP & i'll buy you some playdoh utensils B)

 

Am voting SNP, both boxes. ALEX SALMOND FOR FIRST MINISTER

 

I thought Iain Gray being chased away fae central was funny until I saw him run away fae asda :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not the slightest affinity with "Britishness" in any of its guises, and actually detest so much of what Britain has done and continues to do, both in the world and in these islands.

 

Whatever it legally takes to get rid of it and restore our own place as a nation in the world, not merely a region of another country.

 

 

 

 

 

SNP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the h*ns thought they were having a lovely day in the sun yesterday then they are in for a nasty surprise. Most of Scotland detests the banjo playing retards. I'm fuming about that Union Jackery yesterday.

 

SNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no point of voting, while all parties are defending the interest of the bourgeoisie. With the demise of Social Democracy and Stalinism, the historical era of electoral/parliamentary politics is over. The only historic task of the working class is the establishment of its own dictatorship to abolish the system based on profit not human needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer have a vote in Scotland (I keep telling my dad to add me onto the electoral register at their house and he never does), but in the AV vote I'm voting Yes. I'm not sure AV is the best option for any sort of PR, however it is better than FPTP. I'd prefer a system similar to that of the Scottish Executive, as it seems a good balance between FPTP and PR. I was still undecided until a couple of days ago, but the negative campaigning (some of which is just silly) of the No to AV movement has swayed me in favour of the Yes campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer have a vote in Scotland (I keep telling my dad to add me onto the electoral register at their house and he never does), but in the AV vote I'm voting Yes. I'm not sure AV is the best option for any sort of PR, however it is better than FPTP. I'd prefer a system similar to that of the Scottish Executive, as it seems a good balance between FPTP and PR. I was still undecided until a couple of days ago, but the negative campaigning (some of which is just silly) of the No to AV movement has swayed me in favour of the Yes campaign.

 

 

av and pr are just tactical voting on a mass scale and are just a excuse for small irelevant parties to stick there nose in just look at the lib dum and snp.

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer have a vote in Scotland (I keep telling my dad to add me onto the electoral register at their house and he never does), but in the AV vote I'm voting Yes. I'm not sure AV is the best option for any sort of PR, however it is better than FPTP. I'd prefer a system similar to that of the Scottish Executive, as it seems a good balance between FPTP and PR. I was still undecided until a couple of days ago, but the negative campaigning (some of which is just silly) of the No to AV movement has swayed me in favour of the Yes campaign.

 

I'm enthusiastic about PR - I really do believe it produces a far more representative result which takes account of minority views, crucial to any genuinely democratic system IMHO.

 

So I'm no supporter of FPTP. My real concern about the referendum/AV is that if it's adopted, we'll never get the chance to bring in a fairer system. AV just seems to be playing about at the edges.

 

I'll be voting NO in the hope that it will lead to a more balanced discussion about a fairer voting system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure AV is the best option for any sort of PR, however it is better than FPTP. I'd prefer a system similar to that of the Scottish Executive, as it seems a good balance between FPTP and PR. I was still undecided until a couple of days ago, but the negative campaigning (some of which is just silly) of the No to AV movement has swayed me in favour of the Yes campaign.

 

AV is not PR. It's a slight variant on First Past the Post which removes voter spoilage.

 

av and pr are just tactical voting on a mass scale and are just a excuse for small irrelevant parties to stick there nose in just look at the lib dum and snp.

 

AV gets rid of considerable amounts of tactical voting that exists in FPTP. Proper PR is just about the least "tactical" system you'll ever come across. Sorry Jaggybunnet but you're talking rubbish.

 

Some estimates I've seen suggest that the SNP would either stand still or lose one seat under AV c.f. using the same boundaries under FPTP. I hardly think you can accuse them of playing this for electoral advantage. Even if it did end up giving the Lib Dems more seats, that's frankly appropriate. The current system gives smaller parties a proportion of seats typically around half of their actual proportion of the popular vote.

 

I'm enthusiastic about PR - I really do believe it produces a far more representative result which takes account of minority views, crucial to any genuinely democratic system IMHO.

 

So I'm no supporter of FPTP. My real concern about the referendum/AV is that if it's adopted, we'll never get the chance to bring in a fairer system. AV just seems to be playing about at the edges.

 

I'll be voting NO in the hope that it will lead to a more balanced discussion about a fairer voting system.

 

I really must urge people not to go down this road of "No2AV, Yes2PR". The political reality is that irrespective of the referendum result we're not going to see further change to the system for at least 40 years. A win for No2AV will just be seen as an endorsement of the old, discredited system of elections and will shut off debate almost completely as the issue being described as the pet subject of constitutional reform wonks. Backing AV will at least bring about some change (and it is a slightly better system) and should create a snowball effect to push for reform elsewhere such as in House of Lords reform.

 

Anyway, in answer to the original poster, I will be voting Lib Dem on the constituency and list ballots and Yes to AV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AV is not PR. It's a slight variant on First Past the Post which removes voter spoilage.

 

 

 

AV gets rid of considerable amounts of tactical voting that exists in FPTP. Proper PR is just about the least "tactical" system you'll ever come across. Sorry Jaggybunnet but you're talking rubbish.

 

 

why so WJ if you know your partie isnt going to win you can still vote tactacly in fact you have three chances.

 

there was a clip on the (ironicly) Yes to av Facebook page which proved this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why so WJ if you know your partie isnt going to win you can still vote tactacly in fact you have three chances.

 

there was a clip on the (ironicly) Yes to av Facebook page which proved this

 

You don't "vote tactically" and you don't "have three chances".

 

This idea that some people's votes "count for more" is simply rubbish. The people who back the candidates who are not eliminated have their vote counted again as well! You aren't "voting tactically" if your candidate loses. You are backing a candidate which you find least objectionable who has a chance of winning.

 

Take, for example, a constituency where there are four big parties. One is the Tories, who get 26% (mopping up almost all of the voters who are right of centre). Then you have Labour on 25% (mopping up the authoritarian left), the SNP on 25% (mopping up the independence and centre/centre-left vote) and the Lib Dems on 24% (picking up the liberal centre/centre-left vote). Clearly if the Tory candidate wins, they do so with a mandate which comes from a minority of voters. If the Lib Dem candidate had never stood, most of the people who voted for them would have either voted SNP or Labour, because they are centre/centre-left. Then the Tories would almost certainly not have won. Which is the better situation: the one where the winning candidate represents either a majority or close to a majority of the actual constituency's political views; or the one that is able to mobilise the biggest core vote, no matter how repugnant or disagreeable the vast majority of people find their politics?

 

Under the current system, people who support smaller parties are forced to vote tactically, especially in marginal seats, because otherwise the vote splits and someone with as little as 26% of the vote can realistically end up in power. AV allows people to vote first and foremost with their conscience, but also express a preference between the candidates most likely to be in the running.

 

If a Lib Dem candidate didn't stand in my constituency, it doesn't mean I wouldn't express a preference from among the other candidates from other parties. What AV does is simulate what would have happened if the smaller parties' candidates in a constituency had never ran. It's not "giving me a second chance"; it's asking for a more detailed expression of preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't "vote tactically" and you don't "have three chances".

 

yes you do, if your first vote is for a party that is knocked out in the first round then your second vote counts in that round. you can call it a preference if you want, its an other vote :thumbsup2:

 

This idea that some people's votes "count for more" is simply rubbish. The people who back the candidates who are not eliminated have their vote counted again as well! You aren't "voting tactically" if your candidate loses. You are backing a candidate which you find least objectionable who has a chance of winning.

 

if i only vote for one party when it goes to the second vote my vote is classed as void as i have no second choice.

 

i dont want to vote for another party,i am finding it difficult enought to find one party to vote for never mind two or three.

 

Take, for example, a constituency where there are four big parties. One is the Tories, who get 26% (mopping up almost all of the voters who are right of centre). Then you have Labour on 25% (mopping up the authoritarian left), the SNP on 25% (mopping up the independence and centre/centre-left vote) and the Lib Dems on 24% (picking up the liberal centre/centre-left vote). Clearly if the Tory candidate wins, they do so with a mandate which comes from a minority of voters. If the Lib Dem candidate had never stood, most of the people who voted for them would have either voted SNP or Labour, because they are centre/centre-left. Then the Tories would almost certainly not have won. Which is the better situation: the one where the winning candidate represents either a majority or close to a majority of the actual constituency's political views; or the one that is able to mobilise the biggest core vote, no matter how repugnant or disagreeable the vast majority of people find their politics?

 

Under the current system, people who support smaller parties are forced to vote tactically, especially in marginal seats, because otherwise the vote splits and someone with as little as 26% of the vote can realistically end up in power. AV allows people to vote first and foremost with their conscience, but also express a preference between the candidates most likely to be in the running.

 

If a Lib Dem candidate didn't stand in my constituency, it doesn't mean I wouldn't express a preference from among the other candidates from other parties. What AV does is simulate what would have happened if the smaller parties' candidates in a constituency had never ran. It's not "giving me a second chance"; it's asking for a more detailed expression of preference.

 

so lets bin these irelevant parties (including the lib dems) then.

 

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if i only vote for one party when it goes to the second vote my vote is classed as void as i have no second choice.

 

Well that would be your fault then, wouldn't it?

 

 

If a Lib Dem candidate didn't stand in my constituency, it doesn't mean I wouldn't express a preference from among the other candidates from other parties. What AV does is simulate what would have happened if the smaller parties' candidates in a constituency had never ran. It's not "giving me a second chance"; it's asking for a more detailed expression of preference.

 

so lets bin these irelevant parties (including the lib dems) then.

 

So what parties are relevant then? I imagine your answer will include just the one, will it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that would be your fault then, wouldn't it?

 

 

 

 

So what parties are relevant then? I imagine your answer will include just the one, will it?

 

 

why my fault, should i be forced to vote for parties i dont want to just to keep the av/pr mob happy

 

and the lib dems are irellevant just look whatshappens to them when they find out they have to pay for all these promices they thought they would never have to do

no all the small parties who will never get in , they are pointless and only muddy the waters

 

one vote one person, the winner of that vote is in power, whats the problem apart from its not the parties that the yes lot want.

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes you do, if your first vote is for a party that is knocked out in the first round then your second vote counts in that round. you can call it a preference if you want, its an other vote :thumbsup2:

 

No, it's still only one vote you get to use. People whose favourite candidate in the first "round" are still standing get their first preference counted again. It's not "another vote".

 

if i only vote for one party when it goes to the second vote my vote is classed as void as i have no second choice.

 

Because it's simulating a situation where your preferred party didn't stand. If your party were not participating and you have no preference among the others, you wouldn't have voted anyway so your vote wouldn't have counted under FPTP either!

 

i dont want to vote for another party,i am finding it difficult enought to find one party to vote for never mind two or three.

 

Then don't. AV doesn't force you to use your preferences.

 

so lets bin these irelevant parties (including the lib dems) then.

 

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

 

why my fault, should i be forced to vote for parties i dont want to just to keep the av/pr mob happy

 

You don't have to.

 

no all the small parties who will never get in , they are pointless and only muddy the waters

 

one vote one person, the winner of that vote is in power, whats the problem apart from its not the parties that the yes lot want.

 

Small parties who will never get in? Labour in 1900. The Liberals since the Wars. That's more than a little presumptuous of you, is it not?

 

AV does not change the situation of one vote one person. That vote just moves if they can't have their first preference. I'll link you an explanation why AV is fairer, but still works on the premise of one person one vote, one value.

 

Clicky

 

Clearly the majority want to go to a pub and to drink beer. But because they're all split on where to go to get beer, they end up not getting beer at all under FPTP, but Coffee, because the lentil munchers all gang up. Under AV the majority, who are split only on which specific pub to go to, still get to have a swally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the lib dems are irrelevant just look what happens to them when they find out they have to pay for all these promises they thought they would never have to do

 

A recent study reported on by the BBC suggested that actually the Lib Dems got 75% of their manifesto into the Coalition agreement, whilst the Tories only got 60%. Very "irrelevant", eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's still only one vote you get to use. People whose favourite candidate in the first "round" are still standing get their first preference counted again. It's not "another vote".

 

 

 

Because it's simulating a situation where your preferred party didn't stand. If your party were not participating and you have no preference among the others, you wouldn't have voted anyway so your vote wouldn't have counted under FPTP either!

 

 

 

Then don't. AV doesn't force you to use your preferences.

 

 

 

i was talking about my second preference vote not not voting at all

 

if i dont use all the preferences my vote is worthless, all av does i try to contrive a vote that suit one group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A recent study reported on by the BBC suggested that actually the Lib Dems got 75% of their manifesto into the Coalition agreement, whilst the Tories only got 60%. Very "irrelevant", eh?

 

 

like i said muddy the water and cause weak goverment and whos to say the tories are not happy with SOME of those lib policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...