'Yes' is supported by Eddie Izzard and Stephen Fry, 'no' by Peter Stringfellow and Tony Hadley. Who gives a ****?
Stringfellow says that he understands the current system, and he believes it is "the right way", Izzard says AV will give "power to the people".
You have to wonder whether they even understand the proposals about which they are spewing out slogans. Their quotes suggest not.
If you are politically aware, this might not be the blog for you. But if, like many, you know little about this referendum, other than what Izzard and co think, read on. Compare their views to the facts and, I implore you, vote on the facts, not on the say-so of the celebrity backers:
1) Our existing 'First Past the Post' system and AV are BOTH majoritarion voting systems. In other words, they put power in the hands of the winners; the losers (and those who voted for them) take a backseat with no say in policy-making. This means more than 50% of the voters might not be represented at all by the elected member (under FPTP), or at all by their first choice (under AV).
2) Under either system each separate electorate (constituency) only has one member elected - anyone who didn't want that electee is unrepresented in government.
3) The Liberal Democrats, who now champion AV, did NOT want it before last year's election. They wanted the Single Transferable Vote.
4) STV is a version of Proportional Representation which elects multi-member constituencies via a quota system - in other words if you get a set portion of the vote you get a seat. The majority of voters actually get some representation in the resultant membership.
5) There are other versions of Proportional Representation, for example: The Regional Party List system, whereby you actually just vote for your preferred party, not candidate, and they get the proportion of seats for your area accordingly, given to party members in the order of the published order of preference.
6) The Proportional systems are not outlandish, far-fetched or extremist-friendly (the latter being a common prejudice held over, inaccurately, from inter-war German politics).
7) In fact, in European Parliament elections FPTP and AV are BOTH banned. Neither is deemed fair enough.
8) The UK use the Regional Party List system for European elections. Under this system, for example, the East of England has 7 MEPs (3 Tory, 2 UKIP, 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem) as per the votes cast. These 7 members all represent the whole area, ie. No-one is specifically aligned to and area such as Norwich North - they all represent Norwich North, and all its local neighbours.
9) David Cameron and the Tories are shit-scared of AV, because it might slightly erode their political strength. A fully PR system could actually prevent them from ever getting majority rule again (bearing in mind it took Gordon Brown's limping Labour for them to even get a minority victory...)
10) Because the Tories infiltrated Lib Dem ideology, and warped it to their own ends, we now have a referendum on AV. No-one wanted this in the first place, but it's all we can have for now.
So, that's the facts. There are only two options, because abstaining suggests we don't care either way, rather than caring too much. So what's it to be people? You tell me: Yes or No?
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5
