15 Apr 2011

AV, Hilary says yes, Kevin says no

Do you think that AV will exclude creative minorities even more effectively than the first past the post system?

At least, tactically, a genuine proportional representation system might allow more space for voices from beyond the mainstream. But the proposed Alternative Vote (AV) system isn’t proportionate. Instant run-off voting is designed to make the current ‘first-past-the-post’ system seem more acceptable, but like all elections where the winner takes all, it only creates the false impression of majority support. In fact, AV is more likely to squeeze out any minority parties, reduce the impact of protest votes and reinforce the blandness of political debate.

Or do you think that AV is a huge improvement on first past the post?

A ‘No’ vote to electoral reform would send out all the wrong messages, and be trumpeted as evidence that the British public is broadly content with our politics. Worse still, it might derail existing commitments to see PR introduced for the second chamber. It wouldn’t so much weaken the coalition as confirm our own powerlessness in the face of the interests that guide its agenda. It’s not for nothing that the head of the Taxpayers’ Alliance has given up his time to lead the ‘No’ campaign.



scarletharlot69 said...

Sad to see the Purple Revolution didn't happen... perhaps AV could be worse than FPTP but I fail to see how... and yes above all I feel there is a need for change, and to send a message to those we have allegedly elected that it is for us the Independent Electors to decide how we will elect them. I am still convinced that FPTP is the worse of all worlds and will be voting YES. Not Yes to AV but yes to Change.

Anonymous said...

I agree, it should be up to the people of this country to decide how to elect our MPs and government.

I think the Tories and the other Tories knew that is what people think.

How kind of them to offer us the opportunity. Isn't it?

After looking into referendums and how they operate in the UK I started to wonder.

Importantly, apparently the people of the UK cannot initiate our own referendums.

This makes me think that this referendum on voting reform is not a case of the people deciding how to elect their MPs. Instead I feel that this is a controlled exercise to appease people who want voting reform.

Although Tories don't want AV, they prefer FPTP, AV is kind of their second preference vote. It's the damage limitation option.

That in itself can make people feel like supporting AV.

I fear the Tories are simply giving us all a decoy to go for.

Why a referendum? Why not a vote?

Referendums are either yes or no. Not multiple choice.

The underlying issue at hand though, voting reform IS a case of multiple choice.

Why are people seemingly believing they have been empowered?

Who called for this referendaum?

The people or the Tory/Lib Dems?

Seriously, do you really trust the people who are giving us the options to give us options that will harm their position quicker?

Imperialism Is the Arsonist: Marxism’s Contribution to Ecological Literatures and Struggles

Derek Wall ’s article entitled  Imperialism Is the Arsonist: Marxism’s Contribution to Ecological Literatures and Struggles , argues that Ma...