Av referendum fails - and the ignorant masses bring "Great" britain deeper into it's shit. - Polidicks

Map of results: [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-map[/URL] If you think this post is slightly biased towards AV, deal with it. [quote]According to the BBC, the no camp need to get more than 9.8m votes to clinch victory. They're almost there. Here are the latest figures, with results in from 342 out of the 440 areas.[B] Yes: 4,216,527 - 31.7%[/B] [B]No: 9,098,846 - 68.3%[/B][/quote] Honestly, these people are worse than fucking republicans in their ignorance. In other news, the "No" campaign booklet has been found to contain 99% lies, 1% fabrication, including: "£250million cost of integrating AV into the poltiical system" - Real figure from £0 to £50million "Only 5 countries inc. Australia use AV" - [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/05/australian-experience-misrepresented-av-debate]nope[/url] "Keep one person, one vote" - In AV if your first preference is eliminated that vote counts for NOTHING and your second preference counts for ONE VOTE. "AV is too complicated" - Since when can people not count to 3? Actually, looking at the results of the referendum, this one may be true... "AV would introduce 'President Clegg for life'" - Mudslinging alert! Oh, and if the lib dems are unpopular surely that means that people will just, y'know, rank them really low? Feel free to post here if you voted against AV. I've a lot of time and anger to spare in order to tell you that you're wrong and pounding you into the ground with that fact.

Av is fucking stupid. It mean's there would be more coalitions and would lead to more tactical voting.

Can somebody explain this to an idiot? (ala, me)

Newsflash: FPTP will result in even more coalitions nowadays. Look at this one: This coalition was voted in by, shock horror! FPTP. It may have worked when there were only two parties - labour and conservative - but it just doesn't work nowadays, when there are so many different parties to vote for, all of which have their own policies that people support. And tactical voting is even worse now than it would be under AV. You don't want the conservatives to come into power? Under FPTP, you're pretty much forced to put Labour as your first choice. Under AV, you're able to put the party you actually AGREE with first, and if you don't want the conservatives to come into power, you just put them last. It's still tactical voting, but at least the results that come from it are more representative than everyone just voting for the 'mainstream' party that is the direct opposite to the one they hate.

fucking goddamn lies

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656099]if you don't want the conservatives to come into power, you just put them last. [/QUOTE] You don't even need to put them in last. You can vote in only one party if you want to. It's a shame it failed.

[QUOTE=xeonmuffin;29656091]Can somebody explain this to an idiot? (ala, me)[/QUOTE] Under "First past the post", you are given a ballot paper with, say, 5 candidates on it. You mark the box next to the one you want to vote for. The results are counted, and the person with the most votes wins. Under "Alternative Vote", you are given the same ballot paper, however, you put the candidates in order of preference - a 1 next to the person you MOST want, through to a 5 for the person you LEAST want. You're not obligated to vote past the first preference, but you're a fool not to. The votes are counted as before, however, if no candidate has a clear majority, ie. 50%, the person with the least votes is eliminated. All the people who voted for that person have their first preferences ignored and their second preferences counted as one vote. This continues until one party has a majority - the person with the least votes being eliminated, and all the people who voted for them having their next preference counted instead. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=torero;29656124]You don't even need to put them in last. You can vote in only one party if you want to. It's a shame it failed.[/QUOTE] You're a fool not to put more than one preference, you're essentially losing your chance to say whom you would prefer more - and if your first choice is eliminated, your vote ends up being lost.

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656099]Newsflash: FPTP will result in even more coalitions nowadays. Look at this one: This coalition was voted in by, shock horror! FPTP. It may have worked when there were only two parties - labour and conservative[/QUOTE] This coalition was the first one for 40 or so years so your arguement is invalid and with Av most people would put 1.Conservatives 2.Labour and vice versa anyway.

AV is retarded. If you are doing electoral reform, do it full hog with PR instead of this half-arsed compromise that nobody wants.

[QUOTE=The mouse;29656180]This coalition was the first one for 40 or so years so your arguement is invalid and with Av most people would put 1.Conservatives 2.Labour and vice versa anyway.[/QUOTE] What? Why would ANYONE put 1. Conservative and 2. Labour? Those two parties hold COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ideals. And this coalition was the first, and it won't be the last. There are just too many parties for FPTP to work nowadays. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CarlBooth;29656190]AV is retarded. If you are doing electoral reform, do it full hog with PR instead of this half-arsed compromise that nobody wants.[/QUOTE] I know little of PR so I cannot speak of it, but I know that AV is much better than the current system. And now that this referendum has failed, the tories will use it as an excuse to put electoral reform on the back shelf for many decades. We have literally NO chance of getting PR now, but had people said Yes to AV, we could at least have had a vote to decide on another different voting system.

[QUOTE=CarlBooth;29656190]AV is retarded. If you are doing electoral reform, do it full hog with PR instead of this half-arsed compromise that nobody wants.[/QUOTE] now the issue is now nicely swept under the rug

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656149]Under "First past the post", you are given a ballot paper with, say, 5 candidates on it. You mark the box next to the one you want to vote for. The results are counted, and the person with the most votes wins. Under "Alternative Vote", you are given the same ballot paper, however, you put the candidates in order of preference - a 1 next to the person you MOST want, through to a 5 for the person you LEAST want. You're not obligated to vote past the first preference, but you're a fool not to. The votes are counted as before, however, if no candidate has a clear majority, ie. 50%, the person with the least votes is eliminated. All the people who voted for that person have their first preferences ignored and their second preferences counted as one vote. This continues until one party has a majority - the person with the least votes being eliminated, and all the people who voted for them having their next preference counted instead. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] You're a fool not to put more than one preference, you're essentially losing your chance to say whom you would prefer more - and if your first choice is eliminated, your vote ends up being lost.[/QUOTE] Wow, thanks.

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656208]What? Why would ANYONE put 1. Conservative and 2. Labour? Those two parties hold COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ideals. And this coalition was the first, and it won't be the last. There are just too many parties for FPTP to work nowadays. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] I know little of PR so I cannot speak of it, but I know that AV is much better than the current system. And now that this referendum has failed, the tories will use it as an excuse to put electoral reform on the back shelf for many decades. We have literally NO chance of getting PR now, but had people said Yes to AV, we could at least have had a vote to decide on another different voting system.[/QUOTE] How old are you?

AV is horrible and anyone who supports it is horrible

[QUOTE=Leg of Doom;29656259]now the issue is now nicely swept under the rug[/QUOTE] Precisely. All the people who benefit from First-past-the-post will take this as an oppertunity to say "Look, the country doesn't want electoral reform, so we're not going to have a vote on anything else." [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=xeonmuffin;29656266]Wow, thanks.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2011/apr/08/how-alternative-vote-works-interactive]Here's[/url] an illustrated version to help you understand it better. It makes it much simpler.

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656208]What? Why would ANYONE put 1. Conservative and 2. Labour? Those two parties hold COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ideals.[/QUOTE] Because the 'ignorant masses' recognize that these two parties are the only ones that know how to properly run a country, even if they both want to run it in different ways.

Help, someone has a different opinion than me how ignorant are they! :'(

I think people who support PR but voted no to AV must be the biggest retards in this, electoral reform won't be taken seriously again for decades

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/media] I don't know what you guys are talking about AV is so much more representative of the overall population. Considering that even under FPTP a party can win even if even half of the country haven't voted for them. It's no miracle but at least its a foot in the door for other systems to come forth for future generations.

[QUOTE=SpartanApples;29656338]Because the 'ignorant masses' recognize that these two parties are the only ones that know how to properly run a country, even if they both want to run it in different ways.[/QUOTE] Correction: They're the only ones that have ever been in charge of the country. You can't make that judgement, because there's never BEEN anyone else in power. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=skifer;29656406][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/media] I don't know what you guys are talking about AV is so much more representative of the overall population. Considering that even under FPTP a party can win even if even half of the country haven't voted for them. It's no miracle but at least its a foot in the door for other systems to come forth for future generations.[/QUOTE] Again, precisely. Under FPTP you don't need the majority of people to agree with you. In the end, it's the [b]Smallest Minority[/b] that wins.

[QUOTE=skifer;29656406][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/media] I don't know what you guys are talking about AV is so much more representative of the overall population. Considering that even under FPTP a party can win even if even half of the country haven't voted for them. It's no miracle but at least its a foot in the door for other systems to come forth for future generations.[/QUOTE] I've seen that video before and I still love how it's a wallaby that suggests AV

I voted yes, but I don't mind that it didn't go through. They both work fine, but i do think AV would be better Calling each other retarded and getting all heated up over each others opinion of it is in itself retarded some people are just scared of a bit of change

Why should we swap a shit system for a shittier system? And PR doesn't work, especially in these times where we need a strong government. Also, this is just your opinion, not real news. Mod should lock.

[QUOTE=Charybdis;29656455]some people are just scared of a bit of change[/QUOTE] which leads to my next point: people who are afraid of change of any sort, even change that is clearly beneficial to their future, are retarded.

[QUOTE=The mouse;29656019]Av is fucking stupid. It mean's there would be more coalitions and would lead to more tactical voting.[/QUOTE] Did you get that off a propaganda leaflet?

I supported AV but I wasn't that outrageously bothered, what really got me was when I realised a campaign made up almost entirely of lies was going to win

Although it's a shame no won, it's easy to see why. Yes had virtually no backing to it and No's campaign was just full of shit (see smurfy) Also, someone buy OP a title, something like "ALTERNATIVE VOOOOOOOOOOOOTE"

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656410]Correction: They're the only ones that have ever been in charge of the country. You can't make that judgement, because there's never BEEN anyone else in power.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because I'm sure the BNP or the Green Party would do a great job.

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29656208]What? Why would ANYONE put 1. Conservative and 2. Labour? Those two parties hold COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ideals. And this coalition was the first, and it won't be the last. There are just too many parties for FPTP to work nowadays. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] I know little of PR so I cannot speak of it, but I know that AV is much better than the current system. And now that this referendum has failed, the tories will use it as an excuse to put electoral reform on the back shelf for many decades. We have literally NO chance of getting PR now, but had people said Yes to AV, we could at least have had a vote to decide on another different voting system.[/QUOTE] Actually, Conservative and Labour are pretty close politically.

[QUOTE=SpartanApples;29656587]Yeah, because I'm sure the BNP or the Green Party would do a great job.[/QUOTE] So the only alternatives to Labour and Conservative, in your opinion, are the two most extreme parties the country has? [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Randdalf;29656612]Actually, Conservative and Labour are pretty close politically.[/QUOTE] Labour are left-wing, Conservative (hint is in the name) are right-wing. And even if their policies are similar, they definitely try their hardest to be completely different from each other. Ie. Party 1: Oh, we're going to do X. Party 2: NOOOOOOOOO THAT'S WRONG!