AV

[zotz]

Apparently it's not just me that finds the Yes campaign shittier than I'm happy supporting.

Comments

[nisaba]

I dunno, it's not great but I find the scare tactics of the No vote ("this baby will die because the money to save it is going to AV!^^£$£!!") more disgusting.

[zenithed]

This. I wish they'd spend five minutes explaining the differences rather than being all emotive about it.

Both sides are lying -- Part one

[fizzyboot]

I think part of the reason for this is that both campaigns are to some extent being dishonest. I think the no campaign are more dishonest, but I'm not an unbiased observer, since I'm part of the yes campaign.

The actual mechanics of AV are fairly simple to explain (my effort is here). The advantages of AV versus FPTP are more complex, but to my mind the most important one is that AV satisfies the independence of clones criterion

Re: Both sides are lying -- Part two

[fizzyboot]

What about the pro-AV camp? Their arguments are also not entirely truthful. They say FPTP encourages MPs to be lazy and fiddle their expenses. But most MPs aren't lazy -- they typically work long hours, and stood for parliament in the first place because they genuinely wanted to make a difference for the better. The second part of their claim is on stronger ground: it is statistically proven that MPs with safe seats are more likely to be corrupt, and AV is likely to make seats less safe

[zeecat]

Yeah, that video was a bit off. Campaign or not, though, I think instant runoff stands on its own merits.

[steer]

Hmm... if that video is enough to put you off voting I guess your options are eyes shut or not voting.

[zotz]

Indeed, although it's not just that that I don't like about their campaign.

[steer]

Ah well... since you're unlikely to be voting in an election again I guess the voting system makes less difference to you.

[zotz]

Given that I haven't specified what the other things I'm annoyed about are, I am impressed that you're worked out what (and how common) they are.

Well, specified here, anyway. I've discussed it briefly elsewhere.

[ghoti]

I think my friend Katie summed it up best when she was complaining that the only positive campaign she'd seen had been from UKIP.

[valkyriekaren]

The tactics on both sides are appalling - including David Cameron's frankly insulting 'thinkpiece' (massive free NO ad) in the Evening Standard.

The problem is that voting systems are seen, rightly or wrongly, as a dry intellectual issue, and most political campaigners seem to believe that even relatively simple statistics would be totally lost on 'the man in the street'. So the tactic is to look for an emotional 'in'.

[zotz]

As opposed to, in this case, an emotional Out.

[fizzyboot]

The problem is that voting systems are seen, rightly or wrongly, as a dry intellectual issue,

It's an intellectual issue, but not a dry one -- it's vitally important. The voting system determines who gets elected, which in turn determines all the other systems, so it's one system to rule them all.

political campaigners seem to believe that even relatively simple statistics would be totally lost on 'the man in the street'. So the tactic is to look for an emotional 'in'.

Indeed. I do think both campaigns are targetted at people who're too lazy to think. Maybe they're underestimating the British people. Or maybe not.

[fizzyboot]

LJ doesn't let you edit your messages. Bollocks.