We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

AV, was Clegg set up?


spider9
Resolved

Likes # 0

click here

Was it coincidence that throughout the coalition Clegg has been given 'bad news' to impart and thus incur the wrath of voters and his own Party members? Now he is 'leading' the AV campaign, his reduced standing will also reflect on people's way of deciding on AV. But, more interesting, will be what happens after the vote - if AV fails then I think the grass-roots Libs may well want big changes, even a new leader.

Might prove to be a problem for Dave and the coalition.

Like this post
cream.

Likes # 0

"will be what happens after the vote "

Lot of ifs If he looses the AV vote If the party loose whole sale councilors in the local elections. If the grass roots members wants Clegg to pull out of the coalition. If the party want to appoint a new leader.

What will Clegg do?

Probably cling by his finger nails for a bit of power and stay in office. Not unsimilar to ex PM Brown.

Like this post
john 52

Likes # 0

Fourm member your posts confuse me a little in one thread you complain the the voting system and boundaries have been set up in an anti Conservative way and in this one you are telling me that the status quo is the correct way forward .

Like this post
Toneman

Likes # 0

Reference above is made to a "Bill which made the referendum possible".I don't know what else this "bill" provides, does it say that if the referendum votes are in favour of AV it will be brought into force? The referendum won't itself do this, it will require parliamentary time which may not be available. Am I wrong?

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

I'm at a bit of a loss to see why this is regarded as so complicated.

You have three candidates.

If you are against AV you just vote for one, just as you do now.

If you are for AV you put them in order of preference, 1, 2, 3.

How is it complicated?

Like this post
john 52

Likes # 0

morddwyd I completely agree with you to me it sounds like some people just want to muddy the waters so the present system of voting is maintained

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

mordwydd and john52

Completely agree, it is the obvious solution, let AV go ahead and if you personally don't wish to use your extra preferences then just do as you do now, put one cross only (or a number one if anyone wants to be pedantic!).

Simples, as they now say! Everybody happy.

Like this post
natdoor

Likes # 0

fourm member

In many elections in Australia, each candidate will issue his preferred sequence of votes as guidance to supporters. If you vote only for that candidate you are deemed to have selected candidates in accordance with that sequence.

The mechanics of AV is so simple that a three year old can understand it. The impact it will have is another matter. The comparison with FPTP boils down to deciding if one favours being represented by the one who is least opposed (AV) or one who may not be wanted by the majority (FPTP). In my view, AV would result in a moderation in policies on both extremes in order to gain more second choices and would make MPs more diligent in representing their constituents and local matters.

I am one of the few people who think that by and large MPs do a reasonable job which involves a workload beyond that of most people. I believe that they were entitled to the allowances (not expenses), allocated in lieu of a pay rise, which they were paid and that the scandal was the chaos of the fees office. Members of the other place only have to attend and sign a register to claim per diem allowances. AV would not neccessarily create an increased workload but would modify the focus of their attention.

You claim that the Yes campaign is using negative tactics is totally incredible, as are most of your assertions. The No campaign is claiming that AV will cost £200 million. The true figure is a few thousand. To call their material disingenuous is an understatement.

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

I'm also at a loss to see why AV is regarded as so complicated.

If you have three (or more) candidates standing for election -

You can just vote for one, just as you do now.

or you can vote for two, 1st choice, 2nd choice.

or you can vote for three (or more) in order of preference, 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice etc.

You do not have to vote for all of them, so if you don't like some of the candidates - simples, don't vote for them.

How is it complicated?

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

natdoor

Excellent post regarding AV and FPTP, as you say clear and simple.

fourm member

Have I understood you correctly? Are you saying that we would be compelled to fill in 1 to 8 (or however many candidates there are)? I have never heard this was to be the system, I thought it was how many you wish to rank.

ps "..if you did that in Australia your ballot wouldn't be counted."

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

Apology:-

Last line to fourm member should have said:

ps "..if you did that in Australia your ballot wouldn't be counted."

So what? I won't be in Australia when I vote!!

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Windows 9 release date, price, features: Videos leak as Microsoft sets 30 September unveiling

IDG UK Sites

Why local multiplayer gaming is rapidly vanishing: we look at the demise of split-screen and LAN...

IDG UK Sites

IBC 2014 news: video post, CG and VFX news from Adobe, Blackmagic, Eyeon and more

IDG UK Sites

Retina MacBook Air release date rumours and specs: Gold 12in Retina MacBook Air almost 1cm thinner...