Sandwich

[maltaron]

PR will be far too complicated. The powers that be (another overpaid useless quango) made a cock up when we had one X. Lord knows what a mess we will be in if people have too mark 4 or more numbers, given that many of the young electorate can't count.

 

[maltaron]

PR will be far too complicated. The powers that be (another overpaid useless quango) made a cock up when we had one X. Lord knows what a mess we will be in if people have to mark 4 or more numbers, given that many of the young electorate can't count.

 

[skitzee2k]

PR would see so many fringe groups that you'd never be able to trust your vote again.

that's almost any oxymoron... surely PR is exactly about being able to trust your vote?

and apologies for referring to an earlier post.. but doesn't that suggest we need devolution? Scotland hasn't got a Tory bone it it's body, and England woulf have been a Tory landslide...?

Only just saw this, and yes. That is what I suggested in another thread.

Let's be clear, PR is NOT about trusting your vote. I voted Tory..because I wanted the tory manifesto in place. Lib Dems voted lim dem to see their manifesto in place.

Neither I, or the Lib Dem voters got what we wanted, which was some mushed together mess.

I can put up with this because I know next time is likely to go back to a majority...but if PR was in, you'd ALWAYS have coalitions and therefore would never be able to trust that your vote is used in the way you like.

 

[skitzee2k]

I can understand you having a low opinion of politicians but to suggest that any politician worthy of anyone's vote would allow another political party to flout the law of the land is bit too negative for me.

They might as well 'cross the floor' 'cos there's no way they'd get the same votes again.
You can ensure that most policies have had sufficient scrutiny, have the support of the majority of MPs, of the electorate or are in the best interests of the country and the dissenting MPs, electorate are persuaded to support it.

That's grown-up politics, not the "it's my ball so we'll play to my rules" politics that the two major parties would have us practice.

If they thought it was for the greater good I am sure anyone would allow concessions on something not as important as their OWN policy, if they knew they could get their own in.

What you are describing is a government full of people of the same way of thinking that can work together, but in PR you would have hundreds of different people with opposite views. It isn't a case of wanting to be difficult for the sake of it.
There will always be opposition, BECAUSE there is opposition in the views of the public. So what you'll get is the bigger parties wooing the smaller ones to try to recreate the FPTP system type majority, but instead of a defined manifesto like in FPTP, they'll have to add scraps from the dozen or so smaller party's manifestos to ensure their support..

 

[RedHerring2]

I voted Tory..because I wanted the tory manifesto in place. Lib Dems voted lim dem to see their manifesto in place.

Neither I, or the Lib Dem voters got what we wanted, which was some mushed together mess.

I voted for one of the three parties but what I really wanted was some of the one party's manifesto and some of the other party's.

The outcome means that the parties have to compromise, which satisfies me. It's not exactly what I wanted but I'm happy to accept it in preference to the alternatives. That's real politics. Always having all your own way or not having anywhere near your preference is immature, selfish party loyalty taken to the extreme. Either we do it my way or yours and we take it in turns is not sensible progress.

If AV was available I could have had a real choice, not an artificial one.

 

[skitzee2k]

I voted Tory..because I wanted the tory manifesto in place. Lib Dems voted lim dem to see their manifesto in place.

Neither I, or the Lib Dem voters got what we wanted, which was some mushed together mess.

I voted for one of the three parties but what I really wanted was some of the one party's manifesto and some of the other party's.

The outcome means that the parties have to compromise, which satisfies me. It's not exactly what I wanted but I'm happy to accept it in preference to the alternatives. That's real politics. Always having all your own way or not having anywhere near your preference is immature, selfish party loyalty taken to the extreme. Either we do it my way or yours and we take it in turns is not sensible progress.

If AV was available I could have had a real choice, not an artificial one.

You are either being untruthful, or have been very lucky.
The odds that you voted for one party who happened to get in with the other party that you liked and they compromise on their manifesto in the exact right way are very low.
You could for example want 2 partys who, happen to get in (thumbs up) but due to the way they split their policies, they could go for the 'other' parties policy on every issue.

Now add in that with PR you will have much more parties and the odds decrease even more.

...and do you really want to vote for someone who has no confidence or determination for their polcies that they are just willing to give up on them?

AV means that everyone's votes have a different amount of weight. I don't agree with that. Your 1st pref in some cases will be balanced out by someone's 3rd choice.

Also, the fact that you HAVE to give a preference to parties you don't even want to see in power doesn't mean that you WANT them in power. They might CLAIM to have 50%+ of the vote but if 20% of the is made up with people that ranked them 3rd of 4th out of 5, how can that be taken seriously??

 

[RedHerring2]

If they thought it was for the greater good I am sure anyone would allow concessions on something not as important as their OWN policy, if they knew they could get their own in.

It's called compromise, some of yours, some of ours, meet in the middle, temper yours a bit, temper ours a bit.
Look at it whichever way you want.

What you are describing is a government full of people of the same way of thinking that can work together,

Not at all. I'm describing a government of several/many groups with differring ideas and principles, some of whom are not that disimilar who can compromise on their policies to form a majority, perhaps just in a 'confidence & supply' agreement.

but in PR you would have hundreds of different people with opposite views.

Well not quite. You would have several groups of people with differring views.

There will always be opposition,

Of course there will be and we wouldn't want it any other way. The opposition are the smaller groups who have the more extreme policies or the ones who refuse to compromise

So what you'll get is the bigger parties wooing the smaller ones to try to recreate the FPTP system type majority, but instead of a defined manifesto like in FPTP, they'll have to add scraps from the dozen or so smaller party's manifestos to ensure their support..

Or compromise there own a bit.

But it's not that simplistic. The present case shows where one party can differ on one issue and refuse to give on that occasion, e.g Tories on Euro and PR, Lib Dems on Civil Tax breaks, etc

In a multi party 'majority' similar but more complex arrangements would work.

For instance the Tories will push through the Trident issue without the Lib Dem support but with Labour support.

Politics is complex, complicated and confused. You're trying to simplify it into an 'us & them' situation.

 

[skitzee2k]

If anything I think you are trying to over simplify it by pretending all these different groups you envisage will work together as fluidly as you say. We are having enough trouble with two partys working together...imagine trying to keep a rainbow coalition with 7-10 different partys involved, that is 7-10 party leaders, 7-10 chancellors, 7-10 groups of MPS, 7-10 grassroots supporters.

You need decisive leadership. Not more committees.

Again, it will not temper anything, you'll just end up with a lot of double standards. Where one party gets something of theirs, and the other party gets something of theirs, but because the party's aims are different, the country gets pulled in different directions....at the moment it is only 2 directions...imagine a dozen.

 

[RedHerring2]

You are either being untruthful, or have been very lucky.
The odds that you voted for one party who happened to get in with the other party that you liked and they compromise on their manifesto in the exact right way are very low.

Not at all. The odds of someone agreeing with all of the one parties manifesto and none of the other parties is surely very low.

You could for example want 2 partys who, happen to get in (thumbs up) but due to the way they split their policies, they could go for the 'other' parties policy on every issue.

Highly unlikely but then lots of other people will be celebrating. Hey, that's politics!

Now add in that with PR you will have much more parties and the odds decrease even more.

How many times in this and other elections have we heard "there's not much difference between the parties. You can't get a cigarette paper between them."?

...and do you really want to vote for someone who has no confidence or determination for their polcies that they are just willing to give up on them?

I see you're enamoured with a show of passion during the election speeches.

AV means that everyone's votes have a different amount of weight. I don't agree with that. Your 1st pref in some cases will be balanced out by someone's 3rd choice.

Not quite, only after the first or second round that the other person's first or second choice has been rejected.

Also, the fact that you HAVE to give a preference to parties you don't even want to see in power doesn't mean that you WANT them in power. They might CLAIM to have 50%+ of the vote but if 20% of the is made up with people that ranked them 3rd of 4th out of 5, how can that be taken seriously??

Well I would definitely give one party, say, Greens, a 3rd or 4th or 5th in order to keep out another party, say, Monster Raving Loonies.
I suspect I'm not alone on that.

 

[RedHerring2]

If anything I think you are trying to over simplify it by pretending all these different groups you envisage will work together as fluidly as you say. We are having enough trouble with two partys working together...imagine trying to keep a rainbow coalition with 7-10 different partys involved, that is 7-10 party leaders, 7-10 chancellors, 7-10 groups of MPS, 7-10 grassroots supporters.

You need decisive leadership. Not more committees.

We have the current coalition in preference to an alternative 'rainbow' coalition.
It is obviously in the government's and the country's interest to form allegiances with as few other parties as possible.
The parties that refuse to consider compromise are left out of the equation and form the opposition.
Perhaps it's the sensible, mature parties that form those allegiances.

Remember the old adage, used to refer to Europe,: "we have to be in there to influence it. You can't influence it much if you're not part of it."

 

[skitzee2k]

The chances of agreeing with everything that a manifesto has is quite high, because they all tend to be done in a similar line of thinking.

Anyone claiming there is not much difference between the partys are people who have just looked at the Party leaders and thought, they are all men wearing suits.
In REAL terms they are VERY different.
Immigration example.
Cap 'em, only let high point scorers in, let all the illegals become legal.
BIG differences.

Ok, say I am a Ukip voter, I vote Ukip, my party crashes out, my second choice may be BNP, they have already gone, my vote then goes to torys, who if they have say 25% of the vote, compared to 39 labour/ 35 lib dem, would also get eliminated. So now it is my choice of lib or lab (which I would never support and would hate to think I would ever support equally) that decides who gets that seat.

And the flip side of this, if I was a Labour supporter, I am now at the whim of people who may not care about 4/5 places so just tick at random...not fair.

Also say in this example that my 3rd vote was enough to tip the scales over 50% for a party. So a party I don't give two ****s about could get my vote and claim legitimacy on the "I have more than the 51% vote" claim, when I didn't have a choice but to vote for them".

It is just too flawed. You'd never have these type of problems with the 'Vote for the person you want and the person with the support of the largest amount of people wins' method.

AV is a cheap trick to allow politicians to claim to have support they do not.

 

[skitzee2k]

If anything I think you are trying to over simplify it by pretending all these different groups you envisage will work together as fluidly as you say. We are having enough trouble with two partys working together...imagine trying to keep a rainbow coalition with 7-10 different partys involved, that is 7-10 party leaders, 7-10 chancellors, 7-10 groups of MPS, 7-10 grassroots supporters.

You need decisive leadership. Not more committees.

We have the current coalition in preference to an alternative 'rainbow' coalition.
It is obviously in the government's and the country's interest to form allegiances with as few other parties as possible.
The parties that refuse to consider compromise are left out of the equation and form the opposition.
Perhaps it's the sensible, mature parties that form those allegiances.

Remember the old adage, used to refer to Europe,: "we have to be in there to influence it. You can't influence it much if you're not part of it."

Of course it will be easier to have less people in a coalition...NO-ONE ELSE in the coalition would be even better.

The liberals joined with the tories because if they haven't it would have destroyed them. Simple.

I think you are dreaming of a utopia where everyone has the same ideals. It will not happen.

I think you have been infected with the "As long as it is fair" virus that has been going around. EVERYONE thinks their policies are fair, it is a point of view...one which is different for most people.

Meaning, 'coming together in the national interest', is not going to happen because everyone has their own version of what the national interest is.

 

[RedHerring2]

The chances of agreeing with everything that a manifesto has is quite high, because they all tend to be done in a similar line of thinking.

Doesn't that support the statement of "There's little to choose between the parties"?

Anyone claiming there is not much difference between the partys are people who have just looked at the Party leaders and thought, they are all men wearing suits.
In REAL terms they are VERY different.
Immigration example.
Cap 'em, only let high point scorers in, let all the illegals become legal.
BIG differences.

Taking your example and arriving at a sensible compromise:-
1. Point scoring is introduced plus the potential immigrants must indicate the area of the country that they wish to locate to. (Already done in Australian immigration,I believe)
2. Caps on non-EU economic immigrants (per region) are introduced. This has little effect in reality, because it only applies to 20% of immigrants (and then you have to deduct the refugees)
No cap on refugee immigrants is humanely acceptable.
3. A one-off amnesty is offered. Currently a permanent amnesty exists on a 14 year rule. (Introduced by Labour, supported by Tories.)This permanent 14 year amnesty is then abolished

To use your words; "Simples". (is it your words?)

Ok, say I am a Ukip voter, I vote Ukip, my party crashes out, my second choice may be BNP, they have already gone, my vote then goes to torys, who if they have say 25% of the vote, compared to 39 labour/ 35 lib dem, would also get eliminated. So now it is my choice of lib or lab (which I would never support and would hate to think I would ever support equally) that decides who gets that seat.

And the flip side of this, if I was a Labour supporter, I am now at the whim of people who may not care about 4/5 places so just tick at random...not fair.

Currently you do not have to vote. Why do you suspect that you are forced to use your 3rd, 4th, 5th vote?

Also say in this example that my 3rd vote was enough to tip the scales over 50% for a party. So a party I don't give two s***s about could get my vote and claim legitimacy on the "I have more than the 51% vote" claim, when I didn't have a choice but to vote for them".

So don't use your 3rd and subsequent votes.

It is just too flawed.

A flawed system is designed with flaws. Sufficient thought, planning should remove flaws.
You can't say that the current system has no flaws.

AV is a cheap trick to allow politicians to claim to have support they do not.

AV, PR, AV+, STV are all examples of a fairer system than FPTP.

 

[RedHerring2]

Of course it will be easier to have less people in a coalition...NO-ONE ELSE in the coalition would be even better.

No that's extremism.

I think you are dreaming of a utopia where everyone has the same ideals. It will not happen.

Not at all. I want pluralism where everyone's different opinion is considered and worth a similar amount and hopefully satisfied in the end result.

I think you have been infected with the "As long as it is fair" virus that has been going around. EVERYONE thinks their policies are fair, it is a point of view...one which is different for most people.

The parties try to convince you that their policies are fair.

Meaning, 'coming together in the national interest', is not going to happen because everyone has their own version of what the national interest is.

Of course, because it'll always be tinged with a bit of self-interest.
Hopefully compromises reveal and minimise these self-interests.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Why would anyone settle for a ham sandwich when they had ordered a cheese one?
A refund or replacement, surely