Be Excellent To Each Other

wonder what scotland's independance will have for influence on labour's stance...

My favourite bits of the whole day were Kate's little laughs after each kiss. Very endearing.

Mind, she's got very scrawny legs.

If the numbers above are to be believed, it's a shame that outright lies backed by money will have won the day, and at a guesstimate 85% (probably far more) of those voting 'NO' are doing so on entirely false pretences.



NOTE - The other percentage are doing it because it preserves their own interests - voting for entirely the wrong reasons, but because it backs 'their party'.

What independence? As for Labour's stance, it should be pro-AV, because while AV will lose Labour seats, it'll lose the Tories far more—and that's just sensible tactics. That some senior Labour figures have broken ranks on this could cost Labour dearly if the economy gets back on track (thereby shoring up Con support and potentially stopping haemorrhaging LD share).

But, yeah, it stinks that a campaign backed by astonishingly rich people and the Tories, to ensure a minority share will always be enough to elect the party, is probably going to win. And you can bet whatever happens in 2015, we'll have massive imbalance one way or another and the same anti-AV publications/the people who voted for FPTP will be moaning that it's all so terribly unfair.

Um, isn't that just a feature of democracy?

One of my neighbours is going to vote for a particular candidate 'because he's got a nice name.'

Perhaps the proles shouldn't have been given the vote after all.

For my local election, being as none of the candidates had sent me anything to try and convince me to vote for them, I voted for the person who lived closest to me. Which for a local election seemed as a good a way of choosing as any

Only the Conservative party have been around to canvas and stuff. Christ knows why.

I like to vote for the candidate who comes back with a pizza if asked.

Pretty much everyone I know has received multiple mailouts from the 'NO' campaign.

I don't know anyone who has received one from the 'YES' campaign.

Ironically, most of the people who received them said the 'NO' leaflets have persuaded them to vote 'YES'.

Only canvasser I've seen is my dad's snooty cousin. With a yellow rosette. Blanked her, and TBH I doubt she'd recognise me, as I last saw her in 1997, when I was a teenager during my N64 GoldenEye fixation.

(Man, I hope the Liberals get their asses handed to them as much as their Canadian counterparts were yesterday.)

I've decided to vote yes.

It's not the system I want, but some method of recognising our preferences between candidates is better than none at all.

Also, I'm voting in the local elections this year too and didn't want to spoil the other paper.

Latest ConRes poll says "No - 66%, Yes 34%"

Are these figures for those those likely to vote, or from the whole sample? If the latter, I think turnout will swing it.

I'm voting yes, and putting money on "no", because I can't see it going any other way, frankly.

[edit]15.5 for Yes, 1.06 for No, ffs
Putting a fiver on both will get me 30p if it comes in No, £72.50 if it comes in Yes, so that's me not bothering, then.

Sadly, I have also come to that conclusion. Shame, as the no campaign is so unpleasantly negative that I want it to lose on principle.

(Oh, incidentally the local LibDems seem to have leaflets in Polish for the council elections. Reaching out to new voters, I guess.)

Here's the website

According to my twitter feed, Paddy Power are already paying out on "no".

It's just a shame that it seems the referendum has been won by large, rich interests peddling utter lies to utter idiots.

I think those voting 'NO' should be unable to complain about anything ever again. And be taken off the electoral roll.

And shot.

So annoyed about this. It's amazing that in a country that seems to complain about rich people controlling everything for their benefit, the same people will line up and jump through hoops to perpetuate the status quo.

The 'yes' campaign has been extremely lacklustre: I'm still waiting for the official leaflet to come through my door. I think it's because voting reform enthusiasts who seek a proportional system find it very hard to get excited by the prospect of AV.

The 'No' sides arguments ('it's expensive'; 'it's complicated'; 'you'll let the evil BNP in'; 'losers win') have been pretty lame but dam effective.

Seems worldwide—look at the US and the swing to the rich/right in many European countries and Canada.


I don't. I think it's because the no campaign is extremely well-funded and just spins scaremongering shit that the yes campaign can't combat. My worry throughout has been that the referendum is going to be an expensive 'Nick Clegg approval' mechanism, and that's coming to pass. The yes guys have tried quite hard to counter this, but whenever they say 'fairness', the no lot go 'EVIL COALITIONS!', 'NICK CLEGG!', 'IMMIGRATION!', 'MONEY!' and people recoil in horror and tattoo NO TO AV across their foreheads.

A couple of interesting take-homes, though. If AV dies, will the Lib Dems toughen up against the Tories or just fold entirely? And if the Tories are arguing that we can't afford AV, are they suggesting that despite all their wonderful ideas that we'll still be in financial shit come 2015?

Indeed.

It's expensive - No it isn't, and even if it did cost a fraction more, surely it's worth it for a better system? If not, why bother with elections at all? It's cheaper just to ask Rupert Murdoch who he watns, and this way we all save money.

It's complicated - No it isn't. It's maybe complicated if you're a retard with an IQ measurable only with an electron microscope. Any politician who believes a voter can distinguish between parties on a host of issues, and make a considered decision between multiple choices on complex issues... but can't put a number in a box... deserves to be shot.

You'll let the evil BNP in - Then why are the BNP massively against AV? Oh yes, because they know they'll not get a 50% approval rating to get in.

Losers win - No, losers win with FPTP. With AV people receiving a majority of votes win. It's laughable that the Tories peddle this trash whilst electing their own leader with a version of AV. If FPTP is the perfect system they claim, then David Davies would be their leader and David Cameron would have lost. Pathetic hypocrites.

What also galls be is that Cameron just goes out and lies. Either he's a completely blithering idiot (possible), or he is knowingly going out and telling actual lies, that can be proved to be incorrect, and foisting them upon the public. Either way, it makes him look like a complete tool, and has removed any respect I had for him.

Aye. As for it being complicated, we now have multiple systems in use across the UK. Scotland uses STV for local elections, Northern Ireland uses it for everything except Westminster, and London uses AV's close cousin for the mayoralty. Heck, there is something wonderfully brilliant in the fact that the hereditary peers are the only elected members of the House of Lords, and they use AV to fill in the gaps.

To be honest, the only system I'm not happy with is the closed-list one we use for the European Parliament: I'd like some choice between candidates.

There's a great cartoon about this, with some guy saying AV's too complex before rattling on about the ins and outs of his footie team's chances regarding goal difference, other wins and so on.

My favourite explanation of AV: rank candidates in order of which you'd like them saved from a burning building; stop at the point you don't want anyone saved.


According to Cameron this weekend, voting on electoral reform just isn't British. Funny how it really hasn't got through that the Tories are desperate to retain the UK's spoiler effect for the left/moderates that without exception splits the votes. Even a smacked hard Lib Dem party under the worst possible polling is still going to grab 8% of the vote next time round, almost entirely from Labour. If there's some kind of recovery (not quite to Kennedy-era, but regaining some core support), we'll see the Lib Dems grab up to twice that amount, again causing spoilers UK-wide.

Bizarrely, the best hope to knock some sense into the Tories is UKIP, because if that party continues to gain support, there will also be a spoiler effect on the right of UK politics.

I am voting no, because I am part of the elite plutocracy which owns you plebs.

Alternatively, could someone explain AV to me, please?

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3Y3jE3B8HsE <- AV explained using jungle animals.

Can't see at work.

Go democracy!

On the other hand, it's kind of patronising to assume that voters on either side are voting purely because of the arguments in the campaigns (which have been crap on both sides).

Not really. In every debate I have seen, and every jsutification given by both sides, the 'NO' reasons are very shallow, and easily refuted. I've not seen a single person in any media argue even vaguely convincingly on any single point re: the 'NO' vote.

Unless there are a hidden cabal of people voting 'NO' for reasons that have not been raised by a single person, then yes, they're voting either to keep a particular party in power and increase the influence of financial/business interests, or because they have believed the lies or poor reasoning from the well-funded propaganda campaign.

Briefly, FPTP works as follows:

• Vote for one candidate
• Candidate with the most votes wins the seat

The primarily issues for those against FPTP is that its winner-takes-all approach leads to tactical voting, and it also enables someone to take a seat with a minority backing. There's also the spoiler effect, which the Tories have used well in recent years—the 'left'/moderate vote splits enabling the Tories to win seats that Labour or Lib Dem supporters would have been happy(ish) going to the other candidate.

AV works as follows:

1. Vote for as many candidates as you wish, ranking them in order
2. If a candidate has 50% of the vote, they win the seat, otherwise:
3. Second-choice preferences for the lowest-placed candidates are redistributed.

2 and 3 loop until a candidate has over 50%.

So, say you have a fairly tight content in a UK seat, with three candidates: Left Lib, Lefty Lab and Righty Con. Right Con's a lazy fucker, but he wins elections because the Lefty votes are split. Under FPTP, this happened in 2010:

Lefty Lib: 29%
Lefty Lab: 35%
Righty Con: 36%

As you can see, Righty Con only had a slim majority over Lefty Lab, but the majority of the voters didn't want him. In fact, all the Lefty lot are pissed off and confused, and start talking about tactical voting and how they should have voted for someone who wasn't their first choice. But that might not have made any odds because not everyone would have done this and OH IT'S TOO CONFUSING.

In a magical world where AV actually wins the referendum, here's what happens in 2015, with the exact same turnout:

Lefty Lib: 29%
Lefty Lab: 35%
Righty Con: 36%

Lefty Lib is last, and so he is eliminated (possibly by firing squad) and his second-choice votes redistributed. The vast majority of Lefty Lib supporters thought Lefty Lab was a better bet than Righty Con, and so this happened:

Lefty Lab: 58%
Righty Con: 42%

Lefty Lab wins, backed directly by 35% and indirectly by the majority of the remainder. In 2020, Righty Con will have to work harder to appeal to a broader range of people, rather than being a stuck-up git.

Ok...

If you have two candidates, A and B, one of them is guaranteed to get at least 50% of the eligible votes cast.

Where there are more than two candidates, this is not the case..

Here are the results from my constituency, Oxford West and Abingdon, in 2010:


Conservative 42.3%
Liberal Democrat 42.0%
Labour 10.6%

(there were more candidates, but I've removed them from the list).

The Tories won, but they did not get 50% of the vote. Indeed, over half of them did not vote for the Tories.

Now, it is very rare for any of us to be solidly Tory or solidly Raving Looney or whatever. We might support Labour, but would be happy with the Liberals. Under AV, we can rank the candidates in order of our preference. if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest share of the vote gets eliminated, and all the second preferences of those who supported him are looked at and redistributed.

Say that in Oxford West three candidates got the first preference shares as listed above. We would eliminate Labour. Say that 85% of Labour supporters would be happy with the Lib Dems, and 15% would want a Tory. The vote would then become:

Conservative 43.8%
Liberal Democrat 50.5%

The Liberals would get over 50% of the vote, and their candidate would win. Labour supporters are happy that the Tories have been defeated, and the outcome better represents the range of support in the area.

[EDIT: dam, Craig got the first, and with a better post.]
[EDIT: doesn't add up to 100 as there are smaller parties - and I can't be bothered to correct it]

Okay, that makes sense, and seems much fairer. We should totally have that.

Edit, so why are people saying things like BNP will get in?

Because they're confusing AV with a proportional system, which it isn't.

So basically "no one voting 'no' has personally explained their reasons to me, so therefore they can only possibly be voting that way because they've believed a crappy campaign"? That's astonishingly arrogant. Also "because I haven't heard any good reasons means there can't be any good reasons" is obviously flawed logic.

People have argued from both sides that the other option favours the BNP and it is a non-argument for me. You shouldn't pick a voting system to keep a particular party out (no matter how unpleasant they are), but be prepared to beat them with reasoned arguments, i.e. try and reduce the number of people voting for them, rather than reduce the effect of their votes. Otherwise you run the risk of making them martyrs.

It's also misdirection: by putting inaccurate statements out there, the no camp scares the shit out of people and bolsters the no camp. And it's been confirmed that despite this kind of thing basically being illegal in the UK, no investigation can happen during the campaign. (In other words, don't be shocked for the referendum to go through, FPTP to win, and for all legal hell to break loose.)

It's worth noting that the BNP is rabidly anti-AV. They hate the idea, because it destroys any hope of them getting into the Commons. (UKIP's a different kettle of fish—and, amusingly, they could potentially spoiler the right if they get enough support, which would serve the Tories right.)

On the no arguments, there are some valid ones, which are mostly down to personal preference. I know several people who don't want AV because they hate coalition government. They want a single party in power, even if that party is elected by a minority (like Labour in 2005), because then a single voice governs and is accountable. Personally, I think we've seen—increasingly so—that this model is outdated and problematic (in that the Cons have a go, reshape the UK, then Lab get in, rip things out, start again, reshape the UK, then the Cons have a go...), but I understand the single-party argument. Frankly, I'd rather have a little more continuity and compromise, rather than: WE LOVE THE NHS! [15 years later] WE HATE THE NHS!

There's more on my thoughts about the various systems on my blog, for anyone who's interested.

I'm voting yes. But I do note that paradoxically the yes campaign says 1. AV will mean an end to career politicians on safe seats. 2. A vote for AV increases the chances of moving to PR in the future.
PR being the natural homeland of the career politician.

Funny you mention Canada, as exactly that happened a few days ago – the Tories getting a majority of House of Commons seats on a minority of the votes due to the vote-splitting between the NDP (social democrats) and Liberals, particularly in Ontario.


With strictly list-based PR systems, yes that can happen unfortunately. But thankfully there are other PR systems.

When my child asks me what I did in the great voting system referendum, I will be able to look in him in the eye and say I did my part.

I was bemused to be handed a lengthy ballot form for the parish council election: 24 candidates going for 14 places - none of whom I'd bothered to read up on. Naturally, as I trained in political science, I turned the form upside down and worked my way up until I'd used up my 14 votes. Why, after all, should the guy at the top of the form have all the fun?

Also the fact that Nick Griffin has come out and said that AV is a, "retrograde step. We'll do worse under AV than we already do under FPTP."

I'm not sure how the No2AV campaign can use scare tactics like saying the BNP will get in when their leader has already said it'll be worse for them!

Could be reverse psychology. I'm not falling for it. Vote BNP!

The BNP has said that from the start, to be fair to them.


Because they're lying fuckers desperately trying to cling to power using a system that elects Tories far more often than it should. Still, it seems to have worked. We've swung from 55/45 pro/against to around 40/60. Here's hoping the No lot all stay hope today and that the Yes lot all vote.

Sadly, if you're stupid enough to be outraged by the false arguments, you're probably determined enough to ‘not let this country go to the shit’ and vote No.

Source

'Vote No or have the election decided by a select group of smug luvvies'

I voted lib dem in my council elections, for the one and only reason that there was a Labour canvasser outside our poling cabin doors, as we came out he was being majorly bollocked for it.

I voted yes on AV.

I voted this morning. A political leaflet arrived in the post after I had voted. Great organisational skills and planning, Plaid Cymru.

Ah, forgot my obligatory polling day post:

West Oxford, this morning:

I'm still waiting for my 'Vote YES' pamphlet.

The BNP leaflet arrived weeks ago. I duly critiqued it on Twitter then threw it away.