|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 2, 2024 14:30:47 GMT
It would have passed though the level of misinformation would have been oft the scale. AV and Remain would have won in a clean fight. Both defeated by biased right wing media and Russian money. AV heavily lost the AV referendum mainly because the AV campaign was atrocious, complacent, patronising, offensive and clueless. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 2, 2024 14:33:17 GMT
It would have passed though the level of misinformation would have been oft the scale. AV and Remain would have won in a clean fight. Both defeated by biased right wing media and Russian money. AV heavily lost the AV referendum mainly because the AV campaign was atrocious, complacent, patronising, offensive and clueless. But mainly because no one really wanted to switch to AV. |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Oct 2, 2024 15:45:54 GMT
It would have passed though the level of misinformation would have been oft the scale. AV and Remain would have won in a clean fight. Both defeated by biased right wing media and Russian money. I’m surprised there was so much support for AV, given that it can be even more disproportionate than FPTP in landslide conditions. Perhaps the underlying reason was to cause the Conservative Party as much harm as possible? The next time the Lib Dems find themselves as kingmakers, they ought to insist on STV or, better still, open party lists. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 2, 2024 16:11:43 GMT
It would have passed though the level of misinformation would have been oft the scale. AV and Remain would have won in a clean fight. Both defeated by biased right wing media and Russian money. And saying that "AV is a form of PR" was misinformation, too. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,367 
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 2, 2024 16:17:07 GMT
I don’t want to go down the EU referendum rabbit hole but as far as I remember with AV it was also seen as a chance to give Nick Clegg a battering. Fair or otherwise I don’t think Russia could be blamed for that
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 2, 2024 18:53:41 GMT
It would have passed though the level of misinformation would have been oft the scale. AV and Remain would have won in a clean fight. Both defeated by biased right wing media and Russian money. And saying that "AV is a form of PR" was misinformation, too. The irony about that is that it’s irrelevant. If the referendum had been about PR (AMS or STV or whatever), the turnout would have been higher, and the campaign might have been clearer, but PR would still have been heavily defeated in the referendum - and for the same reasons that AV was defeated. i.e. it would give more power to Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems, and small parties. |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Oct 2, 2024 19:32:20 GMT
Reform UK stated in their manifesto that “a referendum is needed” in respect of electoral reform but did not specify what the question should be. Although Farage has predicted a change in the voting system within the next decade. Other parties didn’t mention a referendum on the subject in their manifestos.
I can envisage a situation where PR is introduced without a referendum; a government could just legislate for it. I think it would require the Labour leadership to get properly behind it (their conference delegates already are) and to make the issue a higher priority. Otherwise it might require a hung parliament situation or an even more fragmented party system to bring it about.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by cathyc on Oct 2, 2024 19:42:44 GMT
Reform UK stated in their manifesto that “a referendum is needed” in respect of electoral reform but did not specify what the question should be. Although Farage has predicted a change in the voting system within the next decade. Other parties didn’t mention a referendum on the subject in their manifestos. I can envisage a situation where PR is introduced without a referendum; a government could just legislate for it. I think it would require the Labour leadership to get properly behind it (their conference delegates already are) and to make the issue a higher priority. Otherwise it might require a hung parliament situation or an even more fragmented party system to bring it about. The choice of question is simple. Should the United Kingdom retain its present method of voting for Parliamentary elections or change it? |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Oct 2, 2024 20:23:41 GMT
Reform UK stated in their manifesto that “a referendum is needed” in respect of electoral reform but did not specify what the question should be. Although Farage has predicted a change in the voting system within the next decade. Other parties didn’t mention a referendum on the subject in their manifestos. I can envisage a situation where PR is introduced without a referendum; a government could just legislate for it. I think it would require the Labour leadership to get properly behind it (their conference delegates already are) and to make the issue a higher priority. Otherwise it might require a hung parliament situation or an even more fragmented party system to bring it about. The choice of question is simple. Should the United Kingdom retain its present method of voting for Parliamentary elections or change it? Possibly. Or, as in 2011, another system - STV, Party Lists, AMS etc could be specifically proposed in the question. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by cathyc on Oct 2, 2024 20:31:09 GMT
The choice of question is simple. Should the United Kingdom retain its present method of voting for Parliamentary elections or change it? Possibly. Or, as in 2011, another system - STV, Party Lists, AMS etc could be specifically proposed in the question. No need. It should simply ask whether people want to retain FPTP or change it. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 2, 2024 20:51:04 GMT
The choice of question is simple. Should the United Kingdom retain its present method of voting for Parliamentary elections or change it? Possibly. Or, as in 2011, another system - STV, Party Lists, AMS etc could be specifically proposed in the question. The problem with spacifying *a* 'nother system in the vote is that everybody who doesn't want *that* systems votes 'No'. It would need to be "change? yes or no?" Then *after* if change is wanted, *then* canvess for what change. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,367
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 2, 2024 20:51:43 GMT
Possibly. Or, as in 2011, another system - STV, Party Lists, AMS etc could be specifically proposed in the question. No need. It should simply ask whether people want to retain FPTP or change it. The opposing side would play up the ambiguity pretty heavily there |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by cathyc on Oct 2, 2024 22:23:19 GMT
Nobody should have to put forward any alternatives. The question is whether to remain under FPTP or leave it, advocates of every other system - even those who don't want it replacing with anything - all gang up on one side and then if they win just bang on that "PR means PR" and "Get PR sorted".
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 2, 2024 22:31:54 GMT
Possibly. Or, as in 2011, another system - STV, Party Lists, AMS etc could be specifically proposed in the question. No need. It should simply ask whether people want to retain FPTP or change it. But what then? Obviously if people vote for no change then we keep FPTP. But what if they vote for change? Since the question didn't specify an alternative, we do we have to go on and on voting as we seek another system? What if it becomes clear during the process that there is no consensus for any system? Let's suppose that I don't like FPTP but I am very keen on the direct constituency link with a single MP. Accordingly I strongly favour AV (I don't, of course, but I'm talking hypothetically here.) So I vote to change the system and am delighted when 'change' is victorious. But only briefly; because suddenly people are talking about systems involving multi-member seats and I'm in danger of losing the feature of the present system that I most value. I might feel that in the circumstances I'd prefer to have stuck with FPTP but doubtless you'll tell me that it's my hard luck and that ship has sailed. So no, don't ask me to vote for an abstract notion of 'change'. If you don't like the current system, work up a specific alternative and then we can have a meaningful vote on it. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by cathyc on Oct 2, 2024 22:36:34 GMT
No need. It should simply ask whether people want to retain FPTP or change it. But what then? Obviously if people vote for no change then we keep FPTP. But what if they vote for change? Since the question didn't specify an alternative, we do we have to go on and on voting as we seek another system? What if it becomes clear during the process that there is no consensus for any system? Let's suppose that I don't like FPTP but I am very keen on the direct constituency link with a single MP. Accordingly I strongly favour AV (I don't, of course, but I'm talking hypothetically here.) So I vote to change the system and am delighted when 'change' is victorious. But only briefly; because suddenly people are talking about systems involving multi-member seats and I'm in danger of losing the feature of the present system that I most value. I might feel that in the circumstances I'd prefer to have stuck with FPTP but doubtless you'll tell me that it's my hard luck and that ship has sailed. So no, don't ask me to vote for an abstract notion of 'change'. If you don't like the current system, work up a specific alternative and then we can have a meaningful vote on it. Nah. Just vote to junk FPTP and then have a four year scrap about what to replace it with, Anyone who disagrees with that is just a remoaner. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 3, 2024 0:15:20 GMT
And saying that "AV is a form of PR" was misinformation, too. I think we've gone through this one before. AV used to sometimes get described as PR, perhaps because it was associated with what was then called the "Proportional Representation Society". The Irish constitution uses the term to describe the system for electing Presidents and I've seen it in other places, albeit mainly pre internet. Trying to hair split this one never really convinced, especially as most of it came after the event. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 3, 2024 0:19:04 GMT
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 3, 2024 0:21:47 GMT
Which bit? He seems every inch to be a rather British sort of utter twerp. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 3, 2024 3:12:15 GMT
No need. It should simply ask whether people want to retain FPTP or change it. But what then? Obviously if people vote for no change then we keep FPTP. But what if they vote for change? Since the question didn't specify an alternative, we do we have to go on and on voting as we seek another system? What if it becomes clear during the process that there is no consensus for any system? Let's suppose that I don't like FPTP but I am very keen on the direct constituency link with a single MP. Accordingly I strongly favour AV (I don't, of course, but I'm talking hypothetically here.) So I vote to change the system and am delighted when 'change' is victorious. But only briefly; because suddenly people are talking about systems involving multi-member seats and I'm in danger of losing the feature of the present system that I most value. I might feel that in the circumstances I'd prefer to have stuck with FPTP but doubtless you'll tell me that it's my hard luck and that ship has sailed. So no, don't ask me to vote for an abstract notion of 'change'. If you don't like the current system, work up a specific alternative and then we can have a meaningful vote on it. Sounds awfully familiar, voting in a referendum with no clear plan for what happens if a certain side were to win. "Be careful what you wish for" springs to mind. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by cathyc on Oct 3, 2024 8:27:56 GMT
Which bit? He seems every inch to be a rather British sort of utter twerp. You've checked? |
|
