the AV promotion team and the home counties

[ecuworrier]

i was a little surprised at a newsthing last night on the radio ... apparently the homecounties have removed the face of an afrocarribvbean poet as endorsement for AV????!!!

is that just cos they won't have heard of him (which i had not) or is there a hidden agenda?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[Boudi]

Sounds like Benjamin Zephania...and if people haven't heard of him I'm a little surprised.

[tranchiebabe]

I would have thought many people would have heard of that poet.

I suspect some of the groups who would be likely to back AV like the BNP wouldn't have liked to see his Zephania's face on the promotional literature. I will certainly vote for FPTP, there is too much danger of extremists being voted in by default, in my opinion.

[AndyHB]

I will certainly vote for FPTP, there is too much danger of extremists being voted in by default, in my opinion.

Victoria Derbyshire ran a mock election on her Radio 5 programme last week, whereby a group of people voted using both FPTP and AV.  Interestingly, the result in both cases was the same - in that case, a Labour candidate won both., (and in a seat that is currently held by the Tories).  What was interesting was that the first person to lose out under AV was the BNP candidate, whilst the UKIP was the third candidate to be discarded.  In the end, the final two were the Labour and the Green Party candidates with the Tory candidate being the final (4th IIRC) discard.

Interestingly, despite the recounts, the Labour candidate did not get 50% of the 'popular vote' - as some advocates of AV claim will always be the case - but her proportion of the vote rose from 35% to 49%.

I think that Tangnefedd's fear about extremists being allowed in through the back door with Av is an unfounded fear - after all, we use PR for the Welsh Assembly Government elections (as do the Scots for their MSPs), and it is used in the internal elections in most of the main political parties.

I agree that AV isn't proper PR, but it is a step in the right direction, as it tends to provide larger proportions of votes for the final winners.  We know that, apart from one or two constituencies, the extreme parties have very small followings let alone underlying support; I think that we will find that the likes of the BNP and the SWP will suffer the same degree of results under both FPTP and AV systems.

[ecuworrier]

ok so sounds like the poet is more well known than i know.....  sooo if Benjamin Zephaniah is so well known then how comes the home counties literature leave his pic out of their literature?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndyHB]

ok so sounds like the poet is more well known than i know.....  sooo if Benjamin Zephaniah is so well known then how comes the home counties literature leave his pic out of their literature?

I haven't yet seen any literature - either pro- or anti-AV.  The only stuff I've seen is online.  Zephaniah is certainly a well-known, and well-respected poet so can't understand why they would have wanted to leave him out.  The suggestion that the BNP wouldn't like it seems spurious, especially as they are one of the parties likely to suffer at the hands of AV.

[saundthorp]

I for one will be voting "No" to a change in the system of voting. It will be a disaster if we end up with AV. I would make a simliar comment that Churchill made with regard to democracy, the first past the post system may be an awful one, but it's better than all the others that have been tried.
The worst aspect of AV is that it dramatically reduces the chances of a single party winning outright a general election. The minute the election is over party manifestos will be ditched and quickly become meaningless
with parties scrambling for power in an unseemly bartering of policies. Over time there will be a procession of hung parliaments election after election.
The Lib Dems have only gone along with this referendum because they see it as a first step towards proportional representation. And why do the LIB Dems want PR? It is because they will NEVER get power under any other system. With PR this country would soon be like many other European countrie with their permanent coalition governments and the attendent political stagnation and corruption of which Italy is a prime example.

[AndyHB]

... The worst aspect of AV is that it dramatically reduces the chances of a single party winning outright a general election.

Again, this is a largely erroneous view.  Experience where it is already used indicates that whilst it can reduce the number of seats that any single party can win, the overall result is that you get smaller majorities rather than no majorities, requiring a single party in power to work with other parties on specific bills, which would - generally - result in fewer examples of 'extremist' legislation.

[saundthorp]

Again, this is a largely erroneous view.  Experience where it is already used indicates that whilst it can reduce the number of seats that any single party can win, the overall result is that you get smaller majorities rather than no majorities, requiring a single party in power to work with other parties on specific bills, which would - generally - result in fewer examples of 'extremist' legislation.

[/quote]

Andy,
Considering there are only three countries that use AV for national elections, I don't think you can talk grandly about "Experience where it is already used indicates" Australia is one of those countries and they absolutely loathe the system.
And what are these examples of 'extremist' legislation". Perhaps it was the nationalisation programme carried out by the Labour government in the late 1940's or perhaps the programme of privatisation carried out by the Tories in the 80's!
AV doesn't give power to the people. It will put the country at the mercy of behind the scene deals by power hungry polititions.
AV also destroys a fundamental principle of democracy, one man, one vote!

[JJ]

Let's have a scheme where it's one woman, one vote!
And I vote for PR.

[saundthorp]

JJ,

AV also destroys a fundamental principle of democracy, one man, one vote!

OK, If I rephrase it and say, "one person, one vote" will you vote for "first past the post"

[JJ]

 

No.
I'm all for a bit of collectivisim, listening to everyone and taking account of their views - it helps with engagement and a sense that one's vote matters, even though the system will still favour the candidate that has the strongest support.

[ecuworrier]

hmm me wonders what Churchill would have said today... but then

hmm wonders what his wife would've said

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

though i quite like the notion of going back to basics with one man one vote it sounds more victorian and cuts out the riffraff ... gives women and the common man to regroup and decide what they want to do politically speaking

[AndrewF]

AV is used by all the main parties to elect their leaders...
It does only give one vote per person per round of voting, and in every round of voting anyone who bothers to vote does get a vote. This concept that some people get several votes while others only get one shows a basic lack of comprehension of maths.

[AndyHB]

OK, If I rephrase it and say, "one person, one vote" will you vote for "first past the post"

Whilst AV is not the best form of representative election, it is a series of rounds of elections where everyone's votes are counted once per round.  To suggest that some people's votes are counted more than others is simply untrue (otherwise the Labour candidate's vote in Victoria Derbyshire's mock election last week could not have increased; it would have to have decreased).

What AV does it ensure that the winner is representative of the largest possible majority of the electorate.  Not sure that the claim that no-one will be elected by less than 50% of the electorate holds true, but it will do away with MPs who have only gained 25 or 35% of the electorate's vote.