How are you going to vote in the May Referendum?

Published by TPOS on 4 April, 2011 - 18:51
Yes
32% (10 votes)
No
16% (5 votes)
I'm not voting
10% (3 votes)
I can't vote
13% (4 votes)
I don't get it!
13% (4 votes)
I have no opinion
16% (5 votes)
Total votes: 31
Submitted by TPOS on 4 April, 2011 - 18:59

The referendum which will be held on the 5th May, asks whether you want to change the voting system from 'first past the post' to the 'alternative vote'.

If you have no opinion, then vote for me, vote no. Blum 3

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by Suhail (not verified) on 6 April, 2011 - 00:49

hmmm i could probably write a whole essay on this feefs as i'm sure you as a politics student. hmmm if i were to vote however, i'd go with no...for all the reasons i'm sure your aware of lol....back to my European law essay now grrr.

Submitted by You on 6 April, 2011 - 01:16

I am undecided on it and am not sure which is better, or is it better to not vote at all even.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by TPOS on 6 April, 2011 - 17:54

Suhail wrote:
hmmm if i were to vote however, i'd go with no...for all the reasons i'm sure your aware of lol.

Yay, you agree with me Biggrin Vote!

Admin, what makes you undecided? I will post some for/against arguments later (which you've probably come across anyway, but yanno, might help others and helps me with my revision Blum 3 )

BTW if anyone's told you it'd be easier for small/extreme parties to come into power, that's not exactly true...

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by TPOS on 22 April, 2011 - 00:04

I saw the No campaign leaflets the other day - there arguments sounded so pathetic :/

Anyway, as I said as part of my revision will put up pros n cons of both tomorrow. (just bumping it up so i remember)

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by malik on 22 April, 2011 - 22:17

I am not eligible to vote, which is so undemocratic.
i want to have my say but i am not allowed to. it is stupid and oppressive.
in Islam all people over 13 can vote. It is so beautiful system God has given to mankind.
Lanat on the corrupt and secret American system.

—

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Submitted by TPOS on 22 April, 2011 - 23:29

Why, are you a criminal? o.O

—

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Submitted by Bilan on 23 April, 2011 - 01:49

malik wrote:
I am not eligible to vote, which is so undemocratic.
i want to have my say but i am not allowed to. it is stupid and oppressive.
in Islam all people over 13 can vote. It is so beautiful system God has given to mankind.
Lanat on the corrupt and secret American system.

u could say the same if ur under 13 as a muslim voter no???

—

"Verily, in the remembrance of Allah, do hearts find rest"

Submitted by lollywood on 23 April, 2011 - 03:47

You wrote:
I am undecided on it and am not sure which is better, or is it better to not vote at all even.

Remember every vote counts

—

My English is not very good

Submitted by TPOS on 3 May, 2011 - 19:38
  • First Past the Post
    How it works?
    The country is split into constituencies
    Each political party puts up one candidate for election
    The voter puts one cross next to their preferred candidate.
    Winner takes all.

    Advantages
    Quick, simple and easy
  • clear choice and clear winner
  • Mandate democracy in which people get what they voted for
  • The least chance of having coalitions
  • One clear representative (MP) who the constituents can go to with any issues
  • Promotes adversarial democracy - The opposition can question, debate, and provide better alternatives to anything being proposed, leading to better policies being made.


    • Disadvantages

  • The winner does not need to have a 50% majority of votes - Q of legitimacy - Labour won with 35% of votes in 2005
  • Also in 2005, tories had 30.7% - Not really a 'landslide victory'!
  • No reliable link between number of votes and seats won - Labour won 55% with 34% of votes in 2005
  • Since winner takes all, smaller parties don't get seats - unrepresentative
    two party system, i.e labour-tory always getting in -> apathetic people -> don't vote OR donkey vote OR tactically vote in order to prevent a party winning
    This is particularly the case for places where there are safe seats in which a certain party has always, traditionally won.
  • Parties with geographical concentration of support have an advantage over those whose support is evenly spread out
  • Adversarial politics not always possible as parties try to please everyone and have centrist policies.
    • —

    "How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

    Submitted by TPOS on 5 May, 2011 - 19:25

    Alternative Vote
    This is NOT a system based on proportional representation

    How it works
    Again, parties put up ONE candidate per constituency
    But this time the voter RANKS each candidate in terms of preference
    You do not need to rank every candidate
    The votes are counted and if a candidate has 50% of the votes he/she wins.
    If not, the votes are counted again but this time the least preferred candidate is eliminated and the people's vote 2nd preference is distributed.
    This goes on until there is a candidate with a 50% majority.
    There is still only one seat/one winner.

    Advantages

  • No wasted wastes as everyone's preference is taken into account
  • less tactical voting
  • legitimate - 50% majority needed to win
  • Makes the MPs work harder as they need to make sure the voter choosing them, even if its 2nd/3rd choice.

    • Disadvantages

  • The No campaign say it's expensive - giving a figure of £250m additional costs
    however they this may not be true - Australia hand count their votes! But money will be needed to educate people...
  • More coalitions - compromising - weaker govts
  • Watered down politics - everyone will try to reach out to everyone
  • It's confusing - may put more people off or still continue donkey voting
  • The result is slow
  • The winner may be peoples least 'not-disliked'

    • Extreme parties do NOT benefit from AV as people would not put them as their 2nd/3rd etc choice.

    Labour would probably have won with AV in 2010
    Lib Dem's only would do slightly better
    erm I'll try and insert the figures if I remember/can be bothered)

    I remember reading/being told countries who have used AV but have changed have actually gone back to first past the post rather than going on to a proportionally representative system (there's an argument that this change will eventually lead to a PR system being used in the UK)

    Only 3 countries use AV.

    —

    "How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

    Submitted by TPOS on 6 May, 2011 - 20:43

    Counting continues but more than 9.8m people have voted to keep first-past-the-post, more than 50% of votes cast.

    —

    "How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

    Post reply