Jump to content

Scottlish Elections


Fistle1876
 Share

Recommended Posts

But how can you possibly vote for something when you don't understand it? The Yes campaign should have done more to explain what it's all about & get the facts out there. A guy came to my door to 'sell it' to me, a Lib Dem, all he could do was criticise the no campaign!

 

I do understand it, but don't agree that it's a good system.

 

The problem is the No2AV campaigning has spread so many lies about AV that the Yes2AV's very simple efforts at explaining the system have been lost in amongst crap about "person who comes third could 'win" and lies about electronic voting machines being necessary and it playing into the hands of the BNP and other extremists.

 

What could people, who understand AV, possibly think is "bad" about it? Every criticism you can level about AV as a system you can level at First Past the Post. The only difference is that under First Past the Post, voting for the candidate you most support increases the risk of a candidate you hate winning the election. It ends voter spoilage. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

It's for that reason they won't. If a system is too complicated to understand (which it isn't, it's easy to understand) then the public won't like it, and the NO to AV campaign are painting AV as a horrendously complicated system. They're also lying about how much it will cost to implement the AV system, claiming the switch would cost £250million. They claim that £130 million will be spent on 'electronic vote counting machines' whilst there are currently no plans for this and Australia who use the same system don't use any electronic equipment to count votes. They are then adding on £80 million for the cost of the referendum, this money will be spent whether we go to AV or not. This leaves £40 million for voter education, which isn't all that much considering the amount that is spent overall on elections. For me though, if you can't understand the system and as a result spoil your ballot, you aren't really smart enough to vote anyway.

 

Broadly agree with all of that. If people think AV is so complicated or a bad system and that's the reason they're voting no, might I suggest you take a look at these two videos:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 310
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have voted Lib Dem in every election since I could vote in 1998, but never again. I cant believe it but I actually think i'll vote for the SNP x2, or maybe even give Galloway my second vote. I watched the leaders debate last night and Salmond stands head and shoulders above the other three. What is it with Iain Gray's voice? I wouldn't be surprised if all the other parties had different leaders before the turn of the year.

 

Anyway, my real conundrum is how I can best use my AV vote to GIRU Clegg. Which is more likely to cause the coalition to collapse? A 'Yes' result or a 'No' result? We never needed a coalition - Scotland works perfectly well without one, where polices can be passed/agreed on a policy-by-policy basis. The Lib Dems sold out in their desire for power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have voted Lib Dem in every election since I could vote in 1998, but never again. I cant believe it but I actually think i'll vote for the SNP x2, or maybe even give Galloway my second vote. I watched the leaders debate last night and Salmond stands head and shoulders above the other three. What is it with Iain Gray's voice? I wouldn't be surprised if all the other parties had different leaders before the turn of the year.

 

Anyway, my real conundrum is how I can best use my AV vote to GIRU Clegg. Which is more likely to cause the coalition to collapse? A 'Yes' result or a 'No' result? We never needed a coalition - Scotland works perfectly well without one, where polices can be passed/agreed on a policy-by-policy basis. The Lib Dems sold out in their desire for power.

 

So you think that it's more important to punish Clegg than to try to reform our electoral system? That's spectacularly narrow-minded of you.

 

The UK Parliament is completely different from the Scottish Parliament. First of all it has far greater budgetary responsibilities (the Scottish Parliament essentially gets given a hand-out and told they can't have any more or any less; whilst the UK parliament can set our taxes all over the place); it lacks the Parliamentary threshold devices (only a simple majority is needed to dissolve a Parliament unlike 2/3 supermajority in the Scottish Parliament); and also it is more adversarial, so without a relatively strong government it quickly collapses into a rabble.

 

The cut and thrust is that not getting a coalition together would have ultimately led to the Budget not getting through and another election. I'm sure people would have just loved the Lib Dems for doing that. I saw in a recent BBC report that actually 75% of the Lib Dem Manifesto has made its way into the Coalition agreement, whereas only 60% has made it from the Tory manifesto. Hardly "selling out" for a party with 1/5 of the vote, 1/13 of the seats and 1/6 of the government's notional voting power, eh!

 

I don't agree with the concept of it & doubt I'm the only one.

 

What part of the concept do you disagree with, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SNP x2 :thumbsup2:

 

People might not like Salmond's personality but he is comfortably the best politician Scotland has. There is no way Iain Gray would be taken seriously on a bigger stage (it wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't taking particularly seriously within his own home).

 

Oh and I'll be voting "yes" to AV as well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 vote, most votes wins, is what it should be.

 

I don't agree with people's 3rd or 4th choices (for example) deciding a 'majority'.

 

But people still only get one vote!

 

First Past the Post creates a ridiculous situation where, for example, the majority could be centre-left liberals, but because that vote gets split three ways by 3 parties adopting similar policies, a right-wing authoritarian candidate could instead end up in power simply because they've managed to mobilise a core vote, even though the vast majority of constituents find their politics repugnant. How is that representative or democratic?

 

AV changes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire your persistence WJ!

 

AV is, at worst, FPTP+. It can't make you, as a voter, any less powerful than you already are. It can only enhance your control over politicians and that HAS to be a good thing, surely?

 

Lib-Dem, Lib-Dem and YES

 

Spot on!

 

Does that make AV+ erm... FPTP++? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that it's more important to punish Clegg than to try to reform our electoral system? That's spectacularly narrow-minded of you.

 

 

No it's not. Clegg is a whore who needs to be taught a spectacular lesson against political whoredom.

 

The poster was making a very valid point based on his own perception of how he believes he can use his vote to the best effect, as he sees things. Nothing at all wrong or narrow-minded about that.

 

By the way, I find your voluminous contribution to a thread, largely taken up by the rights and wrongs of the voting system(s), somewhat odd given that, in earlier forum exchanges, you profess to be sceptical about the very basic concept of democracy itself. Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. Clegg is a whore who needs to be taught a spectacular lesson against political whoredom.

 

The poster was making a very valid point based on his own perception of how he believes he can use his vote to the best effect, as he sees things. Nothing at all wrong or narrow-minded about that.

 

By the way, I find your voluminous contribution to a thread, largely taken up by the rights and wrongs of the voting system(s), somewhat odd given that, in earlier forum exchanges, you profess to be sceptical about the very basic concept of democracy itself. Am I missing something?

 

75% of a manifesto, 1/5 of the popular vote, 1/13 of the seats in Parliament, 1/6 of the Government's voting power. What a "whore" :rolleyes: .

 

The poster was allowing the politics of personality to override an important issue as to the way we vest power in the people who make decisions on our behalf. One might say he can't see the wood for the trees.

 

I reject the notion that democracy itself is inherently good. Indeed in its absolute form, and not within the context of a pre-existing non-negotiable fundamental liberty, it is simply tyranny of the majority. Within such a context, greater degrees of democracy are better. As soon as democracy trespasses on liberty, it becomes illegitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But people still only get one vote!

 

First Past the Post creates a ridiculous situation where, for example, the majority could be centre-left liberals, but because that vote gets split three ways by 3 parties adopting similar policies, a right-wing authoritarian candidate could instead end up in power simply because they've managed to mobilise a core vote, even though the vast majority of constituents find their politics repugnant. How is that representative or democratic?

 

AV changes that.

 

They get 1 vote that counts at each stage (whether that be their 1st vote choice or whatever) but that vote can change when it needs to, which is wrong.

 

That's the 3 parties fault for not working together, too many parties have the same policies under different names (see conservative & Lib Dem). Plus given the fact that UKIP/BNP etc don't currently have any MP's, I don't see how your example of some right wing candidate stealing a seat works. Something like 28 out of 650 seats are from minority parties, none from the above mentioned, so it's obviously not a major problem.

 

If a candidate gets a majority, a majority being more than any other candidate, they deserve to win.

 

The lib dems don't want this as it's 'fairer', they want it as they should get more seats out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

75% of a manifesto, 1/5 of the popular vote, 1/13 of the seats in Parliament, 1/6 of the Government's voting power. What a "whore" :rolleyes: .

 

The poster was allowing the politics of personality to override an important issue as to the way we vest power in the people who make decisions on our behalf. One might say he can't see the wood for the trees.

 

I reject the notion that democracy itself is inherently good. Indeed in its absolute form, and not within the context of a pre-existing non-negotiable fundamental liberty, it is simply tyranny of the majority. Within such a context, greater degrees of democracy are better. As soon as democracy trespasses on liberty, it becomes illegitimate.

 

A firmly objective and not remotely patronising response. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get 1 vote that counts at each stage (whether that be their 1st vote choice or whatever) but that vote can change when it needs to, which is wrong.

 

That's the 3 parties fault for not working together, too many parties have the same policies under different names (see conservative & Lib Dem). Plus given the fact that UKIP/BNP etc don't currently have any MP's, I don't see how your example of some right wing candidate stealing a seat works. Something like 28 out of 650 seats are from minority parties, none from the above mentioned, so it's obviously not a major problem.

 

If a candidate gets a majority, a majority being more than any other candidate, they deserve to win.

 

The lib dems don't want this as it's 'fairer', they want it as they should get more seats out of it.

 

 

:thumbsup2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get 1 vote that counts at each stage (whether that be their 1st vote choice or whatever) but that vote can change when it needs to, which is wrong.

 

Why is that wrong? If anything they're still holding less influence on the outcome than the person whose first preference is in the lead after round one. The latter person gets their first preference counted twice!

 

That's the 3 parties fault for not working together, too many parties have the same policies under different names (see conservative & Lib Dem).

 

This is ridiculous and tends to an idea that there should be only two parties. The thing is political parties are autonomous entities: there isn't simply one big dividing line. Issues matter at different levels more than others. Parties have different roles to play on different levels. In Scotland the Labour Party's credible ideological opponents are the SNP. Over the UK as a whole, it's the Tories. But that doesn't mean that the SNP and Tories should just "work together" or form some sort of merger or pact. If anything they are more different in many respects than Labour and the Tories.

 

Plus given the fact that UKIP/BNP etc don't currently have any MP's, I don't see how your example of some right wing candidate stealing a seat works. Something like 28 out of 650 seats are from minority parties, none from the above mentioned, so it's obviously not a major problem.

 

I wasn't talking about minority parties. There are a handful of seats in Scotland and quite a lot in England which are either 4 or 3 way marginals respectively. Edinburgh South, for example, is a 3 way marginal. Perfectly established parties in one part of the country might be slightly weaker in others. Thus it's not as straightforward as having parties "work together" at a constituency level. Where more than 2 parties have a chance of winning, the vote amongst more similar candidates from parties who disagree on other issues can be defeated by a candidate who represents a smaller share of the electorate and whose views are not those of the majority of the constituency, but who has been fortunate enough not to have the surrounding political turf occupied by other candidates to split that vote.

 

If a candidate gets a majority, a majority being more than any other candidate, they deserve to win.

 

That's not a majority, though. That's a plurality! That's precisely the problem!

 

The lib dems don't want this as it's 'fairer', they want it as they should get more seats out of it.

 

Why are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? The Lib Dems got 23% of the popular vote in the last election, but only won 8.8% of the seats! How is that remotely democratic, fair, or just? Meanwhile Labour, just 6% higher on 29%, won 39.7% of the seats!

 

Can you really blame the Lib Dems for believing in a system which is, first and foremost fairer, as well as being, by chance, one that leads to them getting more seats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you wondering about AV watch this:

 

I personally will be supporting AV mainly because the Tories want me to vote NO as do many of my 'favourite' Neo-Labourites such as John Reid - petty it may be as I don't think it is the best option we could have had. Many versions of PR are superior.

 

As for who I'm voting for - none of your business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is it hard to understand, in a contest between parties in that area one party won more votes than the others so is the winner.

 

you want to cook the books because your party dosnt win, its not democratic at all it called cheating by make up a voting system that suits your needs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is it hard to understand, in a contest between parties in that area one party won more votes than the others so is the winner.

 

you want to cook the books because your party dosnt win, its not democratic at all it called cheating by make up a voting system that suits your needs

 

Because democracy isn't just about getting a "winner"! It's about getting a candidate which best represents the constituents. It's not a "contest" between parties; it's a clash of ideas and of principles, some of which parties share, others which they don't. This is not straightforward tribal warfare.

 

It's not "cooking the books". It's producing a more democratic outcome. One that more accurately represents the view of the whole populus, not just a large minority cleavage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because democracy isn't just about getting a "winner"! It's about getting a candidate which best represents the constituents. It's not a "contest" between parties; it's a clash of ideas and of principles, some of which parties share, others which they don't. This is not straightforward tribal warfare.

 

It's not "cooking the books". It's producing a more democratic outcome. One that more accurately represents the view of the whole populus, not just a large minority cleavage.

 

 

no it dosnt because INHO a fair whack of the population will either not pick a second or just stick any party down who isnt there "hated party" so small parties who very few actualy like could show up as being falsely popular and poss win on the third count. there is a reason the monster raving loony party used to get there deposit back (5% by the way).

 

dont say it couldnt happen because it could no matter how unlikley it seems.

 

if you try to change a system because your party cant get in power its cooking the books.

 

and it is a contest or why vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it dosnt because INHO a fair whack of the population will either not pick a second or just stick any party down who isnt there "hated party" so small parties who very few actualy like could show up as being falsely popular and poss win on the third count. there is a reason the monster raving loony party used to get there deposit back (5% by the way).

 

This is just utterly nonsensical. Voting for a party out of protest against the others is still a vote in protest whether it is under FPTP or AV.

 

If people don't pick a second that is ENTIRELY their prerogative. If their candidate is so unpopular that they are one of the ones with the smallest number of first preferences, they will be eliminated under FPTP AND under AV. If they don't have a second preference, it's because they wouldn't have voted if their first preference had not stood, making their vote meaningless ANYWAY under both FPTP and AV. That's sort of what a second preference is about!

 

dont say it couldnt happen because it could no matter how unlikley it seems.

 

Don't say what couldn't happen? That someone who gets the 3rd most first preferences could win after other preferences are taken into account? Well of course it *could* happen. But if lots of people who voted for smaller parties prefer that party to the other two, then that's quite right! They are, by definition, more "representative" of their constituents. That's democracy!

 

if you try to change a system because your party cant get in power its cooking the books.

 

and it is a contest or why vote

 

If you try to change a system which is biased in favour of other parties so that your party gets a fairer level of representation, how is that cooking the books?

 

It's not a competition between parties; it's a contest of ideas and process to represent the greatest proportion of the populus as accurately as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Clegg on AV, 2010. "Miserable little compromise." Yes he now says that's not what he really meant, but I suppose he didn't really mean to abolish tuition fees either?

 

Well it is a miserable compromise and proportional representation is far better.

 

But the thing about it being a compromise is that FPTP is even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that it's more important to punish Clegg than to try to reform our electoral system? That's spectacularly narrow-minded of you.

 

I saw in a recent BBC report that actually 75% of the Lib Dem Manifesto has made its way into the Coalition agreement, whereas only 60% has made it from the Tory manifesto. Hardly "selling out" for a party with 1/5 of the vote, 1/13 of the seats and 1/6 of the government's notional voting power, eh!What part of the concept do you disagree with, exactly?

 

 

No it's not. Clegg is a whore who needs to be taught a spectacular lesson against political whoredom. The poster was making a very valid point based on his own perception of how he believes he can use his vote to the best effect, as he sees things. Nothing at all wrong or narrow-minded about that.

 

I appreciate WJ accusing me of being narrow minded (in a political sense), but I don't see my intentions as being any different from those that trundle to the ballot box every time there is an election and put a cross in the box for the party that they/their parents/their grandparents have always voted for and always will, without any knowledge of what the parties stand for or how their policies will affect them and their communities. In a UK election, Glasgow will always be RED until we change to full PR. Which is basically my problem with this.

 

WJ has given the statistics (based on a recent BBC report) about the Lib Dem manifesto and how much of it was included in the coalition agreement. To my knowledge their was no intention to have a vote on AV in the Lib Dem manifesto. AV is not the preferred voting reform of anybody - it was a compromise. AV will at best make minimal difference in areas like Glasgow where Labour has a strong support. In a UK sense, my vote for Lib Dem over the years has mattered not a jot - it is only in Scotland where I have voted for them via the list system that i've felt my vote was counted.

 

Even if WJs BBC statistics about the Lib Dem manifesto are correct, I cannot ignore the Tuition Fees that they have backed, this compromise on voting reform, or some of the items in the budget that they have passed. I don't know how WJ voted at the last UK election. If he voted Lib Dem, maybe he is happy. I am not. This is my first chance to express my unhappyness at a UK level - and it might actually count.

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...