Referendum

[yagamuffin]

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....

And this is an entirely different problem - voter apathy and ignorance.
I believe the way we vote for our representatives needs to change. Educating the public about politics, making decisions and the importance of voting should be a high priority for all politicians, but sadly, for as long as we don't live in a democracy and as long as said politicians keep their place it is not in their interest to have an educated population.

 

[Drencrom]

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?

This is a chance to reform politics one way or the other, it won't be cheap or easy either way. If the cost was £250m, then that doesn't seem like a lot of cash compared to say the Scottish Parliament building at almost £500m.

 

[REKIBorter]

I think the AV voting system will get the non-favourites, in a closely faught constituency, to up their game to pick up those valuable second choice votes. If it gets politicians working for us that is a good thing. No more guarenteed places in the H of P. They will have to win votes the hard way by making promises and keeping them.

To add to the voting apathy debate; if you do not vote you have no right to complain about anything the government, or even your local council, do.

As an aside. We approached our own MP about an issue we had and he got the local authority to reverse a decision in our favour. Thank you Mr Alistair Burt MP

 

[BarneyRubble]

The idea that choosing your candidates in order of preference could be "too complicated" is shocking to me. How many opinion polls on websites, TV shows or shoved through the door ask exactly the same thing and no one has a problem with them? Saying it is too complicated and will reduce turnout further is just the "no campaign" trying to get people on side.

Imagine this scenario:

Interviewer - "Rank these ice creams in order of preference:
Chocolate
Strawberry
Vanilla
Rum and Rasin?"

Interviewee - "Erm I'm sorry that is too complicated, I am not going to vote"

It just wouldn't happen.

I saw an appalling party political broadcast on behalf of the no campaign last night and I was surprised they were allowed to get away with it. There was no genuine arguments as to why the current system should be kept, only distorted figures designed to confuse and scare people into voting no. EDIT (it was good to see Alan B'Stard back on our screens though!)

People have referred to Australia several times in the thread as if AV has done their country harm - if you can call years of strong growth, high standards of living and a thriving economy harm, then yeah, AV must be terrible!

 

[IDB1]

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?

This is a chance to reform politics one way or the other, it won't be cheap or easy either way. If the cost was £250m, then that doesn't seem like a lot of cash compared to say the Scottish Parliament building at almost £500m.

When councils are having to cut services because of a lack of available funds, spending £250m is a heck of a lot of money and the cost of a building in Scotland is of no consequence.

 

[IDB1]

The idea that choosing your candidates in order of preference could be "too complicated" is shocking to me. How many opinion polls on websites, TV shows or shoved through the door ask exactly the same thing and no one has a problem with them? Saying it is too complicated and will reduce turnout further is just the "no campaign" trying to get people on side.

Imagine this scenario:

Interviewer - "Rank these ice creams in order of preference:
Chocolate
Strawberry
Vanilla
Rum and Rasin?"

Interviewee - "Erm I'm sorry that is too complicated, I am not going to vote"

It just wouldn't happen.

It would if the interviewee had never eaten ice cream.

 

[IDB1]

People have referred to Australia several times in the thread as if AV has done their country harm

In this thread?? Where??

 

[Drencrom]

When councils are having to cut services because of a lack of available funds, spending £250m is a heck of a lot of money and the cost of a building in Scotland is of no consequence.

Again, there is no evidence either way about this £250m figure being anything other than hype.

 

[IDB1]

When councils are having to cut services because of a lack of available funds, spending £250m is a heck of a lot of money and the cost of a building in Scotland is of no consequence.

Again, there is no evidence either way about this £250m figure being anything other than hype.

And (again), there is no evidence that it isn't...

NO to AV may not have put their case (with regard to cost) across in the best fashion but they have put it across.. people who oppose them have not done similarly..

 

[yagamuffin]

When councils are having to cut services because of a lack of available funds, spending £250m is a heck of a lot of money and the cost of a building in Scotland is of no consequence.

Again, there is no evidence either way about this £250m figure being anything other than hype.

And (again), there is no evidence that it isn't...

NO to AV may not have put their case (with regard to cost) across in the best fashion but they have put it across.. people who oppose them have not done similarly..

Hang on... The No campaign came up with the figure, it's up to them to justify it.
It's like me saying you're a c*nt, you argue you're not but without any evidence to back up your side because I've said it, it must be true!

***no offence meant