Referendum

[IDB1]

I'm against it..

If it was that good more countries would have adopted it, the cost is (apparently) very high too.. where's the money to implement it going to come from when local government is already being cut to the quick financially.

 

[yagamuffin]

I'm against it..

If it was that good more countries would have adopted it, the cost is (apparently) very high too.. where's the money to implement it going to come from when local government is already being cut to the quick financially.

Not sure where the expense will come from. The ballot papers will be worded slightly differently and the counting will take a little longer but I think they're volunteers anyway.

 

[Drencrom]

I'm against it..

If it was that good more countries would have adopted it, the cost is (apparently) very high too.. where's the money to implement it going to come from when local government is already being cut to the quick financially.

The figure being bandied about by anti-AV groups like 'No To AV' is up to £250 million. The way they've advertised that (slightly dubious) figure has been appalling.

It stands to reason that the cheapest option isn't necessarily the better or more democratic.

 

[IDB1]

But where's the rebuttal?

Who can we trust to tell the truth about the actual cost of implementing the system?

 

[Drencrom]

If the £250m figure is the uppermost, and I'd expect the anti groups to inflate it a little, then it's a drop in the ocean.

The fundamental decision is democracy.

 

[IDB1]

If democracy and change were the ideal then surely it would be a choice of more than FPTP or AV... PR would have been added??

Somebody needs to educate folk who aren't 'into' politics on why it's such a great system.. because nothing I've read so far indicates it is.

And until somebody comes up with this info, I'll just go with the fact that the Countryside Alliance are against it then so am I....
Shallow and sheepish.. yup.. but it's all I got right now.

If the £250m figure is the uppermost, and I'd expect the anti groups to inflate it a little, then it's a drop in the ocean..

And the pro groups to play it down..

 

[Drencrom]

If democracy and change were the ideal then surely it would be a choice of more than FPTP or AV... PR would have been added??

Quite, but then I didn't say the only decision.

And the pro groups to play it down..

It's not really the pro-groups argument, so they aren't playing a spurious figure down - I'd imagine so as not to get drawn into a pointless argument about a figure that seems to me to be baseless:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... dirty/5789

 

[IDB1]

Too many links around the net .. Pro bring up Australia as a case for not needing e-counting yet 90 years ago, when the Ozzies got AV, there were no e-counting machines were there?


And it goes to a vote in less than a month, has anyone actually announced the cost of the system??

To be fair, I'll probably end up not bothering to vote and tick the electoral boxes in whatever fashion is required at the time (however, under an AV system, it could lead to total abstinence from voting because I doubt I'll be able to maintain enough interest in the whole thing to research every candidate in order to create an order of preference)..
And I bet I'm not the only one....

 

[Drencrom]

And it goes to a vote in less than a month, has anyone actually announced the cost of the system??

I don't understand the obsession with the cost of the system. It really isn't the fundamental issue - it's a factor, of course, but it's not what the vote is about.

 

[IDB1]

And it goes to a vote in less than a month, has anyone actually announced the cost of the system??

I don't understand the obsession with the cost of the system. It really isn't the fundamental issue - it's a factor, of course, but it's not what the vote is about.

IF this thing is going to cost £250million, do you not think that it should be an issue and that now is a really bad time to implement it?