AV no campaign

[throckenholt]

I am the only one who is annoyed by the blatant propaganda of the AV no campaign. We have had two leaflets through the door in the last few days that are full of misrepresentations and negative spin.

The impression is that AV is hopelessly unfair, incredibly complicated and will undermine life in the UK. And it is all a personal ego trip of Nick Clegg (who is currently to blame for all the UK's ills). I may be paraphrasing but that is definitely how it reads.

I am not particularly keen on AV per se (only marginally better than our current system) - but I am appalled by the tone of the current campaign. It really is smear politics at its worst and I don't think it does anything to raise the tone of politics and encourage people to want to be part of it. Any politician that signs up to that campaign should be ashamed of themselves.

I haven't yet seen any pro campaign literature so can't comment on that.

it is just me then.

maybe because I started with I am rather than Am I - must learn to proof read :)

I've only had YES literature

ah - would you like my no stuff then ? - I would be happy to pass it on to any unfortunate who has missed out.

I'm ignoring any literature and looking myself for information.

I don't think AV is the best alternative, but I'm voting yes because it would give the current establishment a kick in the balls to sort out the madness (provided enough voted yes). I suspect, however, that even if there were a substantial number of yes votes, but the "no" won, it would be quietly ignored.

Not sure it is easy to find any unbiased info about it.

I think it is sad that many of those who will actually vote will just use it as a way to kick clegg, rather than considering what they are actually voting on.

Having it on the same day as other elections is a mistake - but I guess they though apathy would mean no-one would vote if it was on another day. And it would cost too much to have all the polling stations open again.

We tried AV with the kids yesterday (admitedly it doesn't work very well with only 5 voters) - we had 5 options. We established that the first round was exactly the same as first past the post - and they howled with indignation about who won. Then we went on with the AV until more one had more than half the votes - and they were reasonably happy that they had got something they were reasonably happy with.

And they understood the process very easily. They are 8 and 9. So surely it isn't as complicated as the no campaign is trying to make out.

My kids must be odd though - because they immediately wanted to vote on other things - we had to damp down their enthusiasm because we (the adults) were bored and you really can't run elections very well with only 3 (fists and tears tend to become involved rather too quickly). :)

I'm amazed that you're amazed that political literature aimed at persuading people to an argument is 'blatant propaganda'. :) Like every other election leaflet that emerges it's wholly one-sided in favour of a point of view.... no-one won a straight yes/no contest by being even-handed or seeking consensus.

Oddly enough, the arguments being used by both sides are very similar. So when you read a 'Yes' campaign leaflet be prepared to be told again that FPTP is 'unfair' and 'undermines democracy'. And it will be equally partisan and alarmist, that is assured.

I think the whole referendum process is jeopardised by the fact that there will be a low turn-out in key areas - notably London where there are no council elections. The polls say that there is a very slight lead (1%) for the 'yes' vote at the moment and, if the result really is that close on a poor turnout I think there will be arguments that it isn't a popular mandate for action.

I'm amazed that you're amazed that political literature aimed at persuading people to an argument is 'blatant propaganda'. Like every other election leaflet that emerges it's wholly one-sided in favour of a point of view.... no-one won a straight yes/no contest by being even-handed or seeking consensus.

true - but this struck me as even more so than normal.

Oddly enough, the arguments being used by both sides are very similar.

maybe that is because there really isn't much difference between the two systems ?!

there will be arguments that it isn't a popular mandate for action.

that is bound to happen :)

I am bored rigid with it and I actually care - so god knows how those who don't care feel about it.

It is pretty boring and I think most outside the Westminster Village have more important things to worry about, to be honest. The only interesting thing is watching the whacko cross-party alliances develop e.g. Cameron and John Reid, of all people. Apparently, in the 1975 referendum on whether we wanted in or out of the EC, the 'no' campaign was so popular with those on the extremes of parties that it caused major problems of cohesion. Notably, Wedgie-Benn and Enoch Powell were both arguing for 'no' but, because they refused to share a platform, their message was fatally weakened.

The extreme dodginess of the Electoral Reform Society has to be exposed.

It is a FACT that they have a subsidiary which sells expensive and unnecessary voting machines.

It is a FACT that they are one of the very largest donors to the yes campaign.

It is an EXTREMELY STRONG LIKELIHOOD that they stand to profit massively from a more complicated electoral system.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. So what if that offends Chris Huhne's mistress? Boo-hoo.

As for the merits/demerits of the two voting systems.

I slightly prefer FPTP as it is more stable and leads to fewer coalitions. I won't vote for AV, but might just be persuaded vote for a variant of AV, if it was a "knock out all but the first two" system.

Imagine a constituency was a Labour/Tory marginal, with the Lib Dems a strong third, and BNP/Green/Loony making up the rest.

Under AV, the second preferences of BNP/Green/Loony will largely determine who wins. Under a redistribution of everyone but the first two, it will largely be Lib Dem second preferences which decide - far more preferable.

Sadly, that isn't on offer. FPTP is far superior to AV itself, which gives disproportionate weight to worthless votes of the most worthless parties.

Not sure it is easy to find any unbiased info about it.

PSA AV Briefing Paper

www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf

Jeez... isn't there a way to edit posts?

Jim Murphy is the Labour frontbencher who I feel makes Labour's case most potently - I think he is a superstar, and thank heavens that he was a David Miliband supporter, and has therefore been given the relatively boring and consensual Shadow Defence portfolio by Red Ed.

He has written an intelligent article on why he is voting no to AV. Of course, I disagree with many aspects of it - but it is worth reading.

labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/04/19/put-aside-the-cleggphobia-and-vote-no-to-av/

Well we have had nothing through our door. Nada, Zilch. So many folk I know, know nothing about either FPTP or AV.

I'll be voting no. I think AV will help minority parties and losers. Personally, would rather be beaten comprehensibly by the opposition.

Imagine working at the count if AV got in.......and if the losers demanded a recount.........bloody hell, results would be severely delayed.

A stupid question to those who know - what happens to deposits under AV?

If UKIP gets only 200 first preference votes, but 10000 Tory second preferences - do they get to keep their deposit, or not?

LFN the yes vote is lost.

Lets hope the non ministerial LD MP's grow a backbone and bring down the coalition.

I am sure "Dave" will find a nice Tory seat for quisling Clegg after he is dumped by the LD's.

Good question but I've no idea, sorry. I've had a NO leaflet through so I'm going to do a bit of research.

Apparently though, if we vote NO to AV, we get £250 million to spend on teachers, firemen etc

Misleading to say the least.

Oh, and we won't need to pay people to count and recount ballot papers as machines will be bought to count votes.

The extreme dodginess of the Electoral Reform Society has to be exposed

At least they are up front about their donations unlike the no campaign.

It is a FACT that they have a subsidiary which sells expensive and unnecessary voting machines

Which will not be required as stated many times.

It is a FACT that they are one of the very largest donors to the yes campaign.

Which they have never hidden, the clue is in the name ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY

It is an EXTREMELY STRONG LIKELIHOOD that they stand to profit massively from a more complicated electoral system

A fallacy

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. So what if that offends Chris Huhne's mistress? Boo-hoo.

Maybe it's the utter bullshit and lies that most find offensive

Giddy

I really, really hope that AV is lost in England but goes through due to Scottish voters, the right wing filth Tories will go nuts and Dave will get slaughtered.

One can only hope.