Vote YES to AV

[Guy]

I still can't help feeling utterly cheated by the No campaign and in part by Cameron though. Partly because of the myths and lies spread, and then by Cameron's decision not to take actions against it. I feel that he did this because of his views on the matter which compromises his position as leader of the country.

Yes the No campaign did tell a few lies, but I doubt the Yes campaign were exactly angels. I can't find examples right now, but I'm sure there are some. This is in politics, and in politics people often lie.

I do think its a little extreme to say that Cameron compromises his position of leader by not telling a few people to stop lying. He is the prime minister, but he is also the leader of the Conservative party and so his views have to reflect theirs too.

[Sy_Accursed]

I still can't help feeling utterly cheated by the No campaign and in part by Cameron though. Partly because of the myths and lies spread, and then by Cameron's decision not to take actions against it. I feel that he did this because of his views on the matter which compromises his position as leader of the country.

 

I'd be more worried about Cameron's support for the act to "reduce sexual content of pre-watershed tv" which one of the core aspects of is banning all forms of same-sex intimacy from pre-watershed tv. Apparently gay and lesbian couples kissing or holding hands is too "sexual" for pre-watershed now but of course straight couples is fine.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And frankly, Cameron is unpopular enough with the more right-wing elements of the Conservative Party--though maybe less so after last night--without ticking them off for opposing a new voting system that would kill them in a general election. I don't think anyone is proud of the way this referendum was campaigned, but when it was timed to coincide with the local elections, in a way it was almost inevitable.

 

This should have been done on another day. When you put a referendum on an election day you will get party politics tainting the result, and as the results have shown, there is a huge anti-Lib Dem sentiment sweeping across the whole country and they were the only major political party to support the Yes vote. Clegg's face was all over the No campaign and for good reason: He is politically toxic, and they knew it would get people opposing AV.

 

I don't think it's fair to blame Cameron for the Lib Dems' woes and how that was reflected in the AV vote. And yes, it isn't "right" that party politics has had an influence here, but the Lib Dems themselves chose this date, and so they've themselves to blame.

[Guy]

And frankly, Cameron is unpopular enough with the more right-wing elements of the Conservative Party--though maybe less so after last night--without ticking them off for opposing a new voting system that would kill them in a general election. I don't think anyone is proud of the way this referendum was campaigned, but when it was timed to coincide with the local elections, in a way it was almost inevitable.

 

This should have been done on another day. When you put a referendum on an election day you will get party politics tainting the result, and as the results have shown, there is a huge anti-Lib Dem sentiment sweeping across the whole country and they were the only major political party to support the Yes vote. Clegg's face was all over the No campaign and for good reason: He is politically toxic, and they knew it would get people opposing AV.

 

I don't think it's fair to blame Cameron for the Lib Dems' woes and how that was reflected in the AV vote. And yes, it isn't "right" that party politics has had an influence here, but the Lib Dems themselves chose this date, and so they've themselves to blame.

To be honest, any PM from any party would be unpopular now because of all of the cuts that have to be made to make up for the loss that Labour accumulated over their 13 years.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well:

1) Cameron clearly isn't unpopular because the Tories have held their vote in the locals;

2) The deficit wasn't made over 13 years of Labour government, it was due to the bailout of the banks;

3) I was more getting at how popular Cameron is within the Conservative Party amongst the far-right. He's seen as being too moderate by some.

[Will H]

Well:

1) Cameron clearly isn't unpopular because the Tories have held their vote in the locals;

2) The deficit wasn't made over 13 years of Labour government, it was due to the bailout of the banks;

3) I was more getting at how popular Cameron is within the Conservative Party amongst the far-right. He's seen as being too moderate by some.

 

 

I'm not going to get into debates about Conservative policy (maybe a different thread?), this isn't a thread about that, and besides you've made a fine coalition partner.

That said, the furthest-right wing of the Conservatives are, let's say 'lukewarm', towards his moderate stance, he's still the guy who brought the Tories into power and kept the party stable. They still feel very indebted, and therefore loyal to him.

 

Finally, I have to say that I don't really like how the NO campaign criticised Nick Clegg or portrayed him. It struck me that they were jumping on the bandwagon a bit, and it just seemed unnecessary, they could have won the referendum without dealing as much damage to the Coalition. The Conservatives do need to remember that without the Lib Dems, they aren't in the majority at Westminster.

[Ezkaton]

Thought I'd post this as I just saw it on facebook before bed...

 

Referendum Results Map

 

 

With 12,640,417 people voting No to AV that really has to say something - Guess in Danq's view they're all "stopping the UK progressing to the 21st Century" but ah well ;)

 

Also... From reading news this morning - Cleggs under pressure due to Lib Dems being crushed in areas like Sheffield etc.

[Danqazmlp]

So my opinion can be ridiculed but my view of others cannot? Bit hypocritical there. Over 6 million people in the country were for AV. I would bet that more of them knew how it worked than those who Voted No, who mainly didn't vote for the system at all. From everybody I talked to personally it was group a, those who had thought about the voting systems and how they actually work, voting yes, and group b, who only voted no because of the Lib dem backing or through the lies in the no campaign. Not one knew how the system actually worked or the real facts. It's a situation where it would be better if there was a small quiz before people could vote just so they could know what they were voting for.

 

The Clegg bandwagon and reaction in the newspapers is just unprofessional. One had a headline along the lines of 'Britain votes to keep democracy'. Yeah with headlines like that, no wonder the ignorant masses voted how they did. The media is as much to blame as Clegg or Cameron.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Probably because their opinion is that FPTP is more democratic than AV... :mellow:

 

I don't understand why you're complaining that people had seperate reasons voting No. The referendum was whether people wanted AV, not whether they disliked FPTP. Twice as many people said they didn't then said they did, it's just arrogance to say the reason for that is because people were ignorant. Also, even if they were, how much fault does the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign have to take for not educating people otherwise?

[Danqazmlp]

I am not saying it is not the fault of the Yes campaign at all. They definitely did not have enough advertisement and information around which could have definitely helped. This still however doesn't excuse people for voting on something they have no idea about. It's like me voting whether x part of government gets x budget cut. I wouldn't know a thing about it so shouldn't vote.

 

It isn't arrogance to say they were mainly ignorant. From my experience, they were ALL ignorant and not voting on the core changes but political views surrounding it. if you can disprove that please do, but from what I have seen, I am going to assume that is the truth.

 

In a way, it is a good result for the Yes voters though. This has proved that a very significant amount of the country is for voting reform. If it were to be put forward by a different party it would be a very different outcome. We can only hope that the pressure to hold another referendum at some point is there at some point.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I am not saying it is not the fault of the Yes campaign at all. They definitely did not have enough advertisement and information around which could have definitely helped. This still however doesn't excuse people for voting on something they have no idea about. It's like me voting whether x part of government gets x budget cut. I wouldn't know a thing about it so shouldn't vote.

People vote BNP every year thinking whites are honestly a minority in Britain; I know this because I've been involved in the Hope not Hate campaign. I'm not going to deny them their vote because they're stupid, all I can do is inform them that actually about 9/10 of the country's population are white and whatever they may have told them is wrong.

 

This has proved that a very significant amount of the country is for voting reform.

...eh?

[Danqazmlp]

6 million+ people, 30+% of the country. That is a large number of people who are for voting reform. They not have won but from who I have spoken to, they are not going to give up pressuring for it. It may not be a majority, but it is a large chunk of the population.

 

We then disagree in opinion on the first matter. I believe that people who have no idea about a change should not vote on it. This doesn't apply to elections as they have the chance of heavily effecting somebody. But changes and reforms which need a level of knowledge to make an informed decision should only be voted by people who have that knowledge. Too many people are swayed by the media without knowledge that they are heavily opinionated and give no way the full picture.

[Will H]

Danq, I know you're a better person than this. It's fine to have a valid opinion on the matter, but it's another thing to start complaining about the results of a public vote on it.

 

Perhaps the YES campaign didn't put forward the right arguments, perhaps the public have a much better appetite for PR, but the fact of the matter is that the public voted against AV. Much more needed to be done to convince them to support AV, and that wasn't done. End of story.

[Sy_Accursed]

I think we need to get some laws in place that make using out right lies in the way they were by the No campaign illegal.

I mean fair enough people supporting No, but half their propaganda was outright lies with no proof behind it.

Like the whole "Av promotes tactical voting" thing despite the fact it is a statistical fact FPTP is far far worse for tactical voting.

Or "Av leads to coalition governments" despite the fact statistically FPTP systems have more coalition outcomes than AV ones (and can be easily proven comparing pairs of countries over matching time frames)

[Danqazmlp]

I think it is valid to have disagreements with the way the vote was handled by those on either side. I agree that the Yes campaign was not good enough, but they did not resort to lies.

 

I would say be happy to say "ok, that's that, the country has voted" if the No campaign on the whole, along with Cameron, hadn't done things which on any other vote would get universal criticism. If those voting had voted on either for FPTP or AV, then I would be happy, but they didn't, not one bit. The vote itself was handled so horribly that I cannot be happy with it.

 

Yes more needs to be done to convince people about AV, but more also needs to be done to make sure one side doesn't cheat the population. David Blunkett has even admitted the Yes campaigns numbers were made up. That to me shouts cheating. The No comapaign also jumping on Clegg as the figurehead of the referendum was also not a fair thing to do, which is one of my major quarrels with our government as a whole, with politicians not voting for what is best for the country, but for party allegiance.

[Will H]

I think we need to get some laws in place that make using out right lies in the way they were by the No campaign illegal.

I mean fair enough people supporting No, but half their propaganda was outright lies with no proof behind it.

Like the whole "Av promotes tactical voting" thing despite the fact it is a statistical fact FPTP is far far worse for tactical voting.

Or "Av leads to coalition governments" despite the fact statistically FPTP systems have more coalition outcomes than AV ones (and can be easily proven comparing pairs of countries over matching time frames)

 

There are such laws, and I'd personally like an investigation into some of the practices of both campaigns.

However, I believe that the "AV promotes tactical voting" and "AV increases the chances of coalition governments" arguments are valid ones. And you can't go around comparing completely different countries and political systems, that's silly, especially when you can only use three countries as your data points for AV, and Australia has compulsory voting, so that's going to be a dodgy data point in itself.

 

In our approximately two-and-a-half party system, the Lib Dems would benefit from AV, and logically it would increase the chance of coalition governments. You tell me that AV wouldn't help the Lib Dems. Seriously.

 

The arguments I'd like to see investigated are the strangely precise values for the cost of introducing AV to a UK election. I know it's more expensive, but I can't imagine how you could calculate it.

 

As Ginger said, it's really down to the Lib Dems for making the Referendum coincide with the Local Elections, and therefore more subject to party political influences. I suspect that the Lib Dems felt that doing so would be the only way to realistically get a 'YES' result, on the off chance that they might have done well in coalition and might have still been as popular as they were back in the General Election. These things potentially swing both ways.

[joke_slayer]

In a way, it is a good result for the Yes voters though. This has proved that a very significant amount of the country is for voting reform. If it were to be put forward by a different party it would be a very different outcome. We can only hope that the pressure to hold another referendum at some point is there at some point.

 

orly

 

In a speech accepting his side's victory, No to AV campaign chairman Matthew Elliott said the result was "clear signal from every part of the country that people want to keep our simple, fair and effective system for electing MPs".

 

He added: "I personally believe this result will settle the debate about changing our electoral system for the next generation."

 

this was definatly a predictable reaction, and why I think that people voting no just because they wanted PR, or some other system were dead wrong

 

both campagins were awful the yes campaign was weak and didn't concentrate on the facts enough

the no campaign was a very negative, and almost entirely fact free campaign

 

i saw no ads around for the yes campaign, and a full 2 page ad in the paper for the no campaign on the election, that was simply attacking the lib dems and saying that AV will cost 250 mil, 90 of which for the referendum, and it can all be made back by voting NO.

 

I hope this vote will not mean the end of any possible electoral reform, and if the conservatives or labor use this result to kill all of any reform it would be a disgrace, putting up a system that no one really asked for up for a vote and use that result to exclude AV+, PR, or any other system is just shameful

[TrueBeaver]

Thought I'd post this as I just saw it on facebook before bed...

 

Referendum Results Map

 

 

With 12,640,417 people voting No to AV that really has to say something - Guess in Danq's view they're all "stopping the UK progressing to the 21st Century" but ah well ;)

 

Also... From reading news this morning - Cleggs under pressure due to Lib Dems being crushed in areas like Sheffield etc.

2008 USA election results by county

 

I don't think there is any doubt that Obama had a sweeping victory, despite that map. The fallacy is, of course, that urban voters often vote differently from rural voters and that is not represented in a strictly land area map.

 

 

Judging from strictly the posts on this thread and discussions with some Brits I know in IRC, I think the Yes on AV vote has the more persuasive case. Just one man's opinion who has no horse in this race.

[assassin_696]

You need to stop plugging the idea that AV is inherently "fairer/more democratic/better" than FPTP and that a simple education drive would change the result next time. I voted No being fairly well informed of the issues, thanks.

 

http://www.av2011.co.uk/

 

In particular, for a summary: http://www.av2011.co.uk/NewsCaseAgainstAV.html

 

Bear in mind this is a website very much in favour of voting reform, just not a reform like AV.

[Guy]

I think we need to get some laws in place that make using out right lies in the way they were by the No campaign illegal.

I mean fair enough people supporting No, but half their propaganda was outright lies with no proof behind it.

Like the whole "Av promotes tactical voting" thing despite the fact it is a statistical fact FPTP is far far worse for tactical voting.

Or "Av leads to coalition governments" despite the fact statistically FPTP systems have more coalition outcomes than AV ones (and can be easily proven comparing pairs of countries over matching time frames)

Yes some of the numbers were made up, but Politics in general is pretty much opinion and presenting opinion in a convincing way. AV promoting tactical voting is something that perhaps I can agree on, but something that you outright deny. That is called an opinion and we are all entitled to one and allowed to voice it.

 

I agree that the Yes campaign was not good enough, but they did not resort to lies.

Politicians don't always tell the truth. That goes for any politician all over the world. Nothing you can do about it.

 

I would say be happy to say "ok, that's that, the country has voted" if the No campaign on the whole, along with Cameron, hadn't done things which on any other vote would get universal criticism. If those voting had voted on either for FPTP or AV, then I would be happy, but they didn't, not one bit. The vote itself was handled so horribly that I cannot be happy with it.

You are only claiming that the vote was handled awfully because you didn't win it. What was wrong with it? It was a straightforward vote. Each person can vote for what they see fit. I can't see what more you want. If you're talking about how the campaigns went, specifically the NO campaign, then that is not anything to do with the act of voting and voting process its self. Politics is all about disguising things to make them seem better for your side of the argument, and making examples of people. That's just life.

I also fail to see how people weren't voting for FPTP or AV. Surely those were the only 2 choices? You vote for whichever one you would personally like - that's the idea of voting. Whatever makes you like whichever options is totally irrelevant. What you want is what you want and no one can question or criticize your motives. You can disagree with them, but not say O YOU'RE WRONG.

When you say 'on any other vote', what do you mean? What is so special about this vote? I sincerely doubt that any other country in the world gives a toss about how we vote and what we vote on.

 

Yes more needs to be done to convince people about AV, but more also needs to be done to make sure one side doesn't cheat the population.

In what way were the NO campaign cheating the population? They were putting forward their collective view on AV, which was their opinion. They did this a lot more strongly than the YES campaign did. That's not unfair.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There is also some anecdotal evidence to suggest the Yes campaign told a few porkies about the No campaign's funding, ans were sending emails to people who hadn't even asked for them.

 

Granted, it's small fry compared to some of the things the No campaign got up to but it's not saintly conduct either.

[Danqazmlp]

I think we need to get some laws in place that make using out right lies in the way they were by the No campaign illegal.

I mean fair enough people supporting No, but half their propaganda was outright lies with no proof behind it.

Like the whole "Av promotes tactical voting" thing despite the fact it is a statistical fact FPTP is far far worse for tactical voting.

Or "Av leads to coalition governments" despite the fact statistically FPTP systems have more coalition outcomes than AV ones (and can be easily proven comparing pairs of countries over matching time frames)

Yes some of the numbers were made up, but Politics in general is pretty much opinion and presenting opinion in a convincing way. AV promoting tactical voting is something that perhaps I can agree on, but something that you outright deny. That is called an opinion and we are all entitled to one and allowed to voice it.

 

I agree that the Yes campaign was not good enough, but they did not resort to lies.

Politicians don't always tell the truth. That goes for any politician all over the world. Nothing you can do about it.

 

I would say be happy to say "ok, that's that, the country has voted" if the No campaign on the whole, along with Cameron, hadn't done things which on any other vote would get universal criticism. If those voting had voted on either for FPTP or AV, then I would be happy, but they didn't, not one bit. The vote itself was handled so horribly that I cannot be happy with it.

You are only claiming that the vote was handled awfully because you didn't win it. What was wrong with it? It was a straightforward vote. Each person can vote for what they see fit. I can't see what more you want. If you're talking about how the campaigns went, specifically the NO campaign, then that is not anything to do with the act of voting and voting process its self. Politics is all about disguising things to make them seem better for your side of the argument, and making examples of people. That's just life.

I also fail to see how people weren't voting for FPTP or AV. Surely those were the only 2 choices? You vote for whichever one you would personally like - that's the idea of voting. Whatever makes you like whichever options is totally irrelevant. What you want is what you want and no one can question or criticize your motives. You can disagree with them, but not say O YOU'RE WRONG.

When you say 'on any other vote', what do you mean? What is so special about this vote? I sincerely doubt that any other country in the world gives a toss about how we vote and what we vote on.

 

Yes more needs to be done to convince people about AV, but more also needs to be done to make sure one side doesn't cheat the population.

In what way were the NO campaign cheating the population? They were putting forward their collective view on AV, which was their opinion. They did this a lot more strongly than the YES campaign did. That's not unfair.

 

You don't seem to understand that many things the No campaign said were lies. They were not put forward as opinion, they were put forward to the population as facts. That is how they cheated the population. Until you understand that there is no point discussing the matter with you. In any other situation, if one side campaigned with admitted lies, there would be massive criticism and maybe even legal action. Yet here, there is none. How you do not find that wrong is beyond me.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Yes, but the legal precedent set in other cases is because they were tightly contested elections and the lies made a significant difference to the result. This election wasn't tight, it wasn't even close; 70:30 really is as comprehensive as a public vote gets, and the turnout was the second lowest ever seen in a British referendum. Put simply: people just didn't want change.

 

Of course the irony is that Clegg has been so badly damaged by this, Cameron will wonder whether the lies were even beneficial to the coalition now that we know a Yes vote was never likely to win.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yes, but the legal precedent set in other cases is because they were tightly contested elections and the lies made a significant difference to the result. This election wasn't tight, it wasn't even close; 70:30 really is as comprehensive as a public vote gets, and the turnout was the second lowest ever seen in a British referendum. Put simply: people just didn't want change.

 

Of course the irony is that Clegg has been so badly damaged by this, Cameron will wonder whether the lies were even beneficial to the coalition now that we know a Yes vote was never likely to win.

 

Lowest turn out does not show anything about desire to change.

Also you can't say because its not close the lies do not matter or could not of made a significant impact.

For all you know correctly informed of real facts and not opinion framed as facts or outright lies 30%+ of those that voted No might've voted Yes.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Look there is some degree of lying in every election and if you honestly believe otherwise or even believe the opposite will ever happen then I make no apology for calling you naive. I'm not proud of how the No campaign conducted itself, but are you seriously saying that a 40% victory margin in a low-turn out referendum was down to one of the two sides making up some lies? I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of patronising the electorate there.

 

The fact of the matter is people can decide for themselves, there were plenty of impartial news websites which explained it without any bias for them to research, and not enough voters were convinced that going out to their polling station and voting Yes was worth their time.