|
Post by DazaB_WCFC on Apr 26, 2011 19:05:36 GMT
Will you be voting Yes or No? A massive Yes from me. The first step on the road away from an outdated system. Although I fear that the scaremongering "no" campaign will win over readers of certain publications
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Apr 27, 2011 8:50:40 GMT
Daza, BOTH sides of the argument have insulted my intelligence equally, going on about the wonderful or dire consequences of AV without really explaining why.
The "NO" poster portraying the soldier was cringeworthy to say the least, but almost equally crass was the "YES" ad about making MP's work harder. After all, the guy with the duck house claim was NOT breaking the law (unlike some who are now currently serving gaol sentences for swindling the public), had been voted in by more than 50% of his constituents and would've won in the first round under AV anyway.
Telling me, (like Lord Mandelson did), that i should vote "YES" to upset Dave, or that i should vote "NO" to upset Nick and Ed doesn't cut the mustard either.
It's not much different to the Common Market referendum in 1975 when those of us on the "NO" side with genuine concerns about the agricultural and fisheries policies which kept shop prices high, created "mountains" of warehoused, overproduced foods at taxpayers' expense and ultimately wrecked our own fishing industry were drowned out by the portrayal of some prominent anti-marketeers as "loonies".
I have voted in all elections i have been eligible for since 1978. On only a handful of occaisions have i actually ended up with what i voted for. Ranking preferences just seems like hedging bets to me. Nobody has adequately explained properly the difference it would make to me if i put the numbers 2,3,4 etc against the people who i don't want.
Unless we go to a full proportional system, or at least tally-up all the votes around the country and use the percentage to control the number of appointees to the second chamber proportionally then i'm afraid that my vote will continue to be what it always has been, a somewhat futile mark of respect to my ancestors who were killed fighting for my right to have it.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Apr 27, 2011 11:36:28 GMT
I'm edging towards yes, but haven't quite made up my mind yet
|
|
|
Post by AFC J Esaj PRA on Apr 28, 2011 12:12:51 GMT
I'll be voting for the first time in 20 odd years and I'll be voting NO.
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Apr 28, 2011 20:08:37 GMT
Despite being a long-term opponent of electoral reform, I shall probably vote yes. I reckon AV is the least worst option for electing MPs.
|
|
|
Post by Jared on Apr 29, 2011 17:13:20 GMT
I'm voting Yes!
But I agree that the way the campaign has been run by the Yes campaign has been poor........
|
|
|
Post by Meadow on Apr 29, 2011 18:03:35 GMT
My postal vote went off last week and I've voted yes. Not that I think it's ideal, but I'm hoping it might pave the way for PR in the future.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on May 1, 2011 19:31:38 GMT
I'll be voting for the first time in 20 odd years and I'll be voting NO. If you don't normally vote, why do you care about how the vote is counted? ;D
|
|
|
Post by DazaB_WCFC on May 5, 2011 18:00:35 GMT
Daza, BOTH sides of the argument have insulted my intelligence equally, going on about the wonderful or dire consequences of AV without really explaining why. The "NO" poster portraying the soldier was cringeworthy to say the least, but almost equally crass was the "YES" ad about making MP's work harder. After all, the guy with the duck house claim was NOT breaking the law (unlike some who are now currently serving gaol sentences for swindling the public), had been voted in by more than 50% of his constituents and would've won in the first round under AV anyway. Telling me, (like Lord Mandelson did), that i should vote "YES" to upset Dave, or that i should vote "NO" to upset Nick and Ed doesn't cut the mustard either. It's not much different to the Common Market referendum in 1975 when those of us on the "NO" side with genuine concerns about the agricultural and fisheries policies which kept shop prices high, created "mountains" of warehoused, overproduced foods at taxpayers' expense and ultimately wrecked our own fishing industry were drowned out by the portrayal of some prominent anti-marketeers as "loonies". I have voted in all elections i have been eligible for since 1978. On only a handful of occaisions have i actually ended up with what i voted for. Ranking preferences just seems like hedging bets to me. Nobody has adequately explained properly the difference it would make to me if i put the numbers 2,3,4 etc against the people who i don't want. Unless we go to a full proportional system, or at least tally-up all the votes around the country and use the percentage to control the number of appointees to the second chamber proportionally then i'm afraid that my vote will continue to be what it always has been, a somewhat futile mark of respect to my ancestors who were killed fighting for my right to have it. Having seen the Yes campaign broadcast, I'd be inclined to agree with your top point. The person I voted for has never been returned in any election I've voted in, but for example at the last general election, I was torn between voting for the candidate I felt most represented my views, safe in the knowledge that he had absolutely no chance of winning in Worcester, or voting for the candidate which I preferred out of the two that had a reasonable chance of winning the seat so that I was able to support my preferred candidate out of the two realistic options. Under the AV system I would have been able to show my support for both candidates. After that I doubt I would have chosen a third, fourth and fifth choice candidate as I would not have been happy for my vote to go towards them in the unlikely event that my second choice was outside the top two.
|
|
|
Post by DazaB_WCFC on May 5, 2011 18:00:58 GMT
Would prefer the STV system to the AV though
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on May 15, 2011 12:48:41 GMT
The high point of the campaign for me was the end of John Humphrys interviews with the main party leaders.
After snapping at first Nick and then Dave, hardly giving them a chance to answer properly before interrupting, concluded what amounted to, in comparison a philisophical discussion with Ed; " David Miliband..er.. David? errrr Ed Miliband, thank you"
|
|