rmc28: Rachel smiling against background of trees, with newly-cut short hair (Default)
[personal profile] rmc28
The Yes To Fairer Votes made this little film the morning after the bill authorising the AV referendum finally got through parliament:


(I really like the music; you can find more by the band here: http://www.myspace.com/edwardsharpe. I love the internet.)

Nick Clegg and David Cameron gave separate speeches, respectively supporting and opposing the voting system change. The BBC compare and contrast the arguments, while the Economist's Bagehot blog picks out the best and worst arguments from each speech.

Ed Miliband writes in the Guardian about why he's campaigning for a Yes vote. I don't often agree with Ed, but here I do: "AV will also force parties to admit where there is agreement between them ... Exaggerating disagreement in order to create false black-and-white choices under first-past-the-post has only added to a particular style of politics that turns off the electorate."

Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer charmingly admits to "belong[ing] to that tragically nerdish minority who are fascinated by electoral systems" and then goes on to discuss David Cameron's speech which "was not among his best. Those in his party who are paranoid about Mr Cameron's long-term intentions will rumble that this is because his heart really isn't in it ... I think the speech wasn't that good because the case for retaining first past the post is so uncompelling."

This twitter exchange gave me the giggles:
@Conorpope: So AV delivers more or possibly fewer coalitions, depending on if you support AV and whether you think coalitions are a good or bad thing?
@dhothersall: @Conorpope Excellent, let's put that on a banner and take to the streets demanding gradual change in due course.

Date: 2011-02-21 11:00 (UTC)
naath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] naath
Cameron says:
"When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn't have to settle for anyone's second choice."

WTF man, doesn't he realise that he is a lot of people's second, third, fourth, NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS choice? He didn't get 50% of the votes, he didn't even get 50% of the SEATS FFS.

But of course we aren't "settling for anyone's second choice" unless we have AV. Of course.

Date: 2011-02-21 11:06 (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
If there really is the strength of feeling for an 'anyone but the Tories' party, and that's the most important issue for many people (more important than what the other parties actually believe -- all they care about is it not being the Tories), then the anti-Tory parties should get together and form an electoral alliance. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve to win -- if they can't even find a way past their differences in order to win an election, how can they be expected to run the country?

One of the nice things about first-past-the-post is that it punishes vote-splitting and encourages parties who fundamentally agree to get together rather than to split into lots of tiny factionalistic parties and therefore run the risk of letting their opponents in -- having seen the stupidity of the DUP vs UUP vs the proliferation of various tiny UPs, I think punishing vote-splitting is a very good idea to force people who basically agree to find a way to agree.

Alternative be honest that what you want is a way to say 'not Tory' and introduce not AV, but a system where everyone gets on + and one - vote and the winner is the candidate with the highest net total.

S.

Profile

rmc28: Rachel smiling against background of trees, with newly-cut short hair (Default)
Rachel Coleman

September 2017

M T W T F S S
    12 3
456789 10
1112 13141516 17
1819 2021222324
252627282930 

Page Summary

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2017-09-23 16:36
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios