Why we don't *need* AV (aka: I lost, of course I'm bitter)

[onebyone]

I'm sure every no-voter has their own reasons, and obviously I'm disappointed by the result. But seriously? You actually *like* FPTP? What is *wrong* with you people

Comments

[jiggery_pokery]

Well, I voted yes, and blogged in favour of it, and am just as bitter as you, but...

is it even faintly consistent to believe firstly that AV is too complicated, and secondly that at least one member of every residence in the country must fill in the census on pain of a 1000 pound fine?

At first I thought "Brilliant analogy! I wish I had heard people use it during the campaign", which is not to say that they didn't. However, on further thought, I think it doesn't stand up because if people won't, or can't, fill in the census, then temporarily employed civil servants will come around and nag them and/or help them to do so.

It is considered to be effective civil participation for people to work together to complete a single census return. It is not considered to be effective civil participation for people to work together to complete a voting paper, as much as it may be considered acceptable for people to try to persuade you how to complete it

[onebyone]

Yes, I confess it's not quite the clinching argument I might have presented it as. But if it had been, and I'd waited until after the vote to present it, what kind of a mug would that make me?

It's true that you can't work on a ballot paper together, at least not unless one of you is saying you need help just to read/write it at all. But you can discuss in advance what the ballot paper is going to look like, how to work it, and so on. I've often seen helpful pictures in election leaflets with the candidate's name and a big X next to it, and FPTP allegedly isn't even difficult. So it seems reasonable to assume that they'd help people out with AV too :-)

[jiggery_pokery]

Certainly true, but the difference is that - if need be - census officers will come around your house, ask you questions individually and fill in the forms for you. In voting "I'm not sure" or "none of them" are valid opinions, whereas on the census the officer will help you answer the questions of fact if you cannot remember, calculate or deduce the answers.

*continues to seethe at vote result*

[_kent]

I think those who are in favour of FPTP must essentially be in favour of the current system whereby, usually, the party they like is IN, and the party they hate is OUT. Or vice versa, of course. But if your party is OUT, then perforce, soon they must be IN again, and success is measured in terms of how long you have to spend OUT compared to how long you get to stay IN next time

[onebyone]

"The Opposition aren't really the opposition. They are only the Government in exile. The Civil Service are the opposition in residence." (Lynn & Jay)

It's quite true, FPTP favours two-party politics, and two-party politics favours the biggest two parties. Naturally, they have most of the electorate behind them, so if people vote for political reform on the basis of party political interests, then it won't get reformed.

The point was supposed to be to change the basis on which parties are built, but getting anything quite so sophisticated and controversial as that across in about a 6 week campaign was always going to be a big ask. I thought it might sneak through on a low turnout, but as it happens it would have to have been a *really* low turnout.

[bateleur]

That nod did Hosni Mubarak fine for very nearly 30 years

Rather low blow there.

It's people like you who put sick babies on posters! ;-P

[onebyone]

This is *after* the campaign. I'm not saying you should vote Yes because otherwise dictators get in, although I probably would go so far as to say that on the whole it's best to vote when possible, just to help stop them.