And the £250m figure is bullshit.
I find it galling that they offer it as a binary choice, like if we didn't spend money on a referendum, the money would *definitely* go to Armed Forces equipment/saving babies.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:35, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

I don't get what any of you two are talking about, what's AV?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:42, Reply)

Alternative voting.
which essentially means swapping from first past the post to representational.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:44, Reply)

Apologies to detract from what I agree is a valuable point of discussion (I'm all for AV and am very keen to see it introduced),
but the term "Alternative Vote" cracks me up. I choose to believe it means that everyone has to dress up like they're off to Bloodstock or Slimelight before their vote counts.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:46, Reply)

I'm not.
Giving up a system that's been in place for hundreds of years and is perfectly capable of working very well if people could actually be fucked to walk 300 yards to a polling station once every three to five years mostly based on the relentless whinging of one secondary party and a fistful of minors is daft.

The only reason it's getting any credence now is that the LDs are capable of whining slightly more loudly than normal.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:52, Reply)

How does that work? So that, say if there were 100 seats, and 30% voted for Labour, labour would get 30 seats?
Who is the PM and all that then, if that happens?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:50, Reply)

Pretty much, yeah.
PM would be the leader of the biggest party. It'd lead to more coalitions, but other parties would feel better and that's the main thing, isn't it.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:53, Reply)

Wouldn't it allow for the likes of the BNP and (if-they-politicalise) EDL to get involved?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:57, Reply)

Yup. Rather than being marginalised by only winning the odd seat.
They'd gain the same percentage of seats as the percentage of votes they'd received.

Edit: Or maybe not
V
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:58, Reply)

You're implying that the whole of the UK would vote purely based on party then they'd allocate
That's not it at all.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:00, Reply)

I didn't realise that it was a half-arsed mixture of the two.
lack of research on my part.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:02, Reply)

research the ability to give a flying fuck about lefties whinging again
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:04, Reply)

Pretty much.
Although my politics are a little convuluted and I swing wildly between left and right depending on the subject matter.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:07, Reply)

Would it be split up down to the area...
... eg, say, barnet gets 30% labour and 70% conservative... conservative would get barnet's seat, or would they have to scoot down and share the seat 30% with labour. Or would it be country-wide so although Labour lost that seat, they can add up that 30% to someone elses so they win that area.

wait, I don't think that makes sense, is it....
- Is it the seats in the houses of commons is split up by the whole country's vote.
- Is the seats for each council split up by that council's votes... and if it is this, what one gets to go to parliment?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:03, Reply)

I was basing my assessment on the assumption that it would work along similar lines
to the American system. I haven't really been taking alternative voting seriously as I doubt it'll last as an option past this Government and because I think changing the way the country votes to try to fix a symptom, rather than the cause, is a bloody silly way to behave.

BA knows a damn sight more than me on how it would be applied here. Sounds dreadful, anyway.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:05, Reply)

I quite like the idea of a world in which a vote for a party you don't loathe isn't just pissing in the wind.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:10, Reply)

Jill..... JILL........ JILL !!!!!!!
ARE YOU FOR AGAINST PROPORTIONAL VOTING IN A DEMOCROSIED SOCIETY?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:12, Reply)

So do I
And should people get off their backsides and start voting for minor parties, the current system is perfectly capable of delivering.

People assume that the Tories or Labour are going to win and so assume there's no point in voting for anyone else. The more seats won by minor parties means they have a larger representation. The two bigger parties then have to adjust their politics accordingly.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:13, Reply)

Given that the entirety of the national media, and both major parties, spend the whole of election time
drumming home that a vote for anyone else is a complete waste, I don't see that ever happening. So, a change in the system.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:15, Reply)

That isn't going to change with a change in system, though.
They're still going to drum home that there's no other viable alternative. What needs to change is peoples' interest in politics, not the way we vote.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:17, Reply)

Well not with the AV system, but if we were allowed a compelte PR system
like the one in the Netherlands, then you can end up with huge turnouts because people are aware that their votes mean something.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:23, Reply)

I've often thought that internet voting would be an excellent way of mobilising more people.
Plus it would make referendums much quicker and cheaper to execute, meaning we could have more of them and, therefore, more direct control.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:27, Reply)

Which would, in turn
mobilise more the electorate to vote.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:28, Reply)

Hmmmm, I don't want lots of referendums
If I wanted to run the country myself I'd become a politician, I don't want to do that, I want the people I elect to run the country in accordance with the promises they set out when I voted for them.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

You say that, but you've just freely admitted you haven't looked at *anything* to do with AV before declaring your opposition to it.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:28, Reply)

www.b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post1128692
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

It's not capable of delivering at all
the support for a minor party has to be hugely concentrated for them to have any chance of winning a seat.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:16, Reply)

Right:
With AV, you rank your candidates in order of preference on your ballot. They then add up all the "first" places, and see if anyone has over 50% of the vote. If not, then they add the "second" choice places and see if that gives someone over 50% of the vote, and so on. Hence why it would be difficult for the BNP etc. to gain representation.

First candidate to get to 50% in the constituency becomes the MP.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:13, Reply)

I'd also like to point out that I'm fucking shocked that people are so opposed to change when they don't even know what the change is.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:23, Reply)

I didn't say I was against it.
I am strongly suspicious of it and the motives behind it.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:25, Reply)

The motive is to get a more representative voting system.
It's not the ideal voting system, but there is not one single argument in which FPTP comes out in front of AV, so from that point of view it ought to be a forgone conclusion.

The fact that the NO campaign is pedalling lies and negative ideas just goes to prove that they have nothing good to say about their choice.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:31, Reply)

But your suspicion is based on your mistrust of a party, rather than being informed about what it actually is.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:32, Reply)

What happens if no-one gets 50%?
Is that technically a possibility?
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:26, Reply)

I'm not very good at doing maths with percentages
But thinking about it logically, I think it would be impossible.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

That's an interesting idea.
If you have five candidates and each got 20% and nobody put a second preference for anyone, then yes I guess you could have a tie. But I think the likelihood is so low.

Plus there will almost certainly be a contingancy for one candidate not getting 50% but still having the highest percentage.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:33, Reply)

Oh, I think I like that.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:30, Reply)

Sorry to butt in
But thats not quite how it works... If no one person has acheived 50% of the vote then the person polling the lowest number of votes is eliminated and that second choice is added and so on, it is the "single transferable vote" AV is a misleading term.
(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 16:16, Reply)

The constituencies would remain the same size and require the successful candidate to have over 50% support, so it's extremely unlikely.
Probably at least as extremely unlikely as it is now.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:59, Reply)

It's just a pity that the general public are that easily manipulated.
I was going to say "it's shocking", but it's not.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:43, Reply)

Shows how weak the 'No to AV's argument is though.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:45, Reply)

It's weak all right.
Given that the people with most to gain from a switch are Liberal Democrats, that doesn't surprise me either.

Totally unsurprised by any of it. That's me.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:46, Reply)

I am mostly pissed off with the "but AV isn't the best option, even the supporters will tell you that" argument.
We know. We also know who's responsible for that being the only thing on the table. You cunts.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:47, Reply)

Imagine if you had a political viewpoint so asinine
that the only way you could think of displaying it was to write it on a piece of cardboard and walk up and down a busy thoroughfare carrying it and shouting?

That'd be hilarious.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:49, Reply)

Given that all you were able to muster to counter my points this morning was
"Wait for four years for things to get worse then vote them out", please excuse me telling you to fuck off.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:53, Reply)

I'm sorry, you're right.
The democratic process really is a fucking stupid way of ensuring the viewpoint of the majority is represented. Throwing fire extinguishers at the police is much better.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:02, Reply)

what would you know, monts
you only work in an office. some people would rather DIE than do anything so mundane. the world OWES THEM A MUCH MORE EXCITING LIVING, mm-kay?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:04, Reply)

Nonono, you're right, there is absolutly nothing disgraceful with the way goverment currently runs.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:04, Reply)

Personally I think democracy is a terrible idea.
Government by 'the people'? Fuck that shit, I've seen 'the people' and they are retarded.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:06, Reply)

The Victorians had the right idea, but the wrong application.
Certain sections of society have no business voting.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:09, Reply)

Well, by the people who vote for whoever's in power, anyway.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:09, Reply)

this is also true
but at least you're not trying to bring the country to its knees for a day and therefore starving the economy that the cuts are meant to be helping in the first place...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:08, Reply)

I reckon whenever someone in power spends moe than £20k, they have to personally directly face-to-face say to someone they're making redundant "I'm sorry, we have to let you go, we're hiring Barbera Windsor for the christmas doo".

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:14, Reply)

Seriously Swipey
stop pedalling that retarded argument. One protest march is not going to bring the country to it's knees and starve the economy. The massive cuts that are going to cripple the economy and put thousands out of work will do that much more effectively.

I'd like to think you're smarter than this.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:18, Reply)

As smart as, say, NICK CLEGG?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:20, Reply)

I know you think that's a withering put down, but I've freely admitted that I was fooled by a cunt before the election.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:21, Reply)

It's all I've got, Al.
I don't know what I'm on about really.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:24, Reply)

*pats hand*
There, there. Would you like some cocoa and a nice sit down in front of the telly? There's a program about that nice David Bowie on. You like him don't you.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:25, Reply)

Nurse!
I've had another 'accident'.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

pre-mature ejaculation laughs

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:34, Reply)

Monty is NEVER premature
it's simply that Lusty takes too long.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:36, Reply)

I think
it'd be a really interesting and worthwhile thing to do. And absolutely certain to change the government's mind
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:53, Reply)

i think i made my views on it quite clear on the previous thread
the stupidity of these people is as criminal as the acts of violence
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:03, Reply)

I think it's ridiculous
and I fucking hate the self-righteousness that rolls off the cunts. They rarely come up with decent fixes or mends, they just whine about the way things are.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:07, Reply)

they like shouting and they like smashing things
they are like children. big shouty smashy children.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:09, Reply)

While I don't doubt that some people who oppose the government are cunts
I also don't doubt that some of them who support it are too.

There are alternatives to the current cuts.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:12, Reply)

Of course there are alternatives
doesn't mean they should be taken just because some people think that's the right way. The alternatives proposed aren't good enough to be honest to have to overturn their stance on certain issues in order to enable. Come up with a fantastic plan that'll fix everything, rather than a wishy-washy 'perfect world' scenario.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:15, Reply)

I am poorly informed.
Thus: What are these alternatives, please?
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:16, Reply)

Smaller cuts over a longer period
because having a large debt which you are quite capable of paying off over time as your economy grows is better than having a small debt and an economy which has been crippled by massive cuts and leads to higher unemployment and greater public spending on benefits which in turn ends up with a larger debt again.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:21, Reply)

Borrow shitloads more money and spend that!
God Wookiee, CAN'T YOU SEE?
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:21, Reply)

Lots
A 'Robin Hood' tax on banks could raise billions - even something as simple as stopping public schools being classed as 'charitable' foundations could gain £130 million per year.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:22, Reply)