Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Tomorrow, the UK will hold a referrendum to change it's voting system, which could lead to a fairer system with more competitive minor parties, a greater choice for voters, with sugar and spice and a Unicorn for every child   ( guardian.co.uk) divider line
    More: Cool, Liberal Democrats, swing voters, Nick Clegg, democratic reform, electoral reform, A.V., SNP, tories  
•       •       •

897 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2011 at 8:09 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-05-04 05:37:59 AM  
Boy, that sounds great! They should totally change it in that case.
 
2011-05-04 07:28:50 AM  
You don't vote for kings.
 
2011-05-04 08:31:27 AM  
 
2011-05-04 08:39:49 AM  
Both headlines appear to mock the idiocy that is lefty liberalism.
 
2011-05-04 08:42:48 AM  

Phil Herup: Both headlines appear to mock the idiocy that is lefty liberalism.


Who's surprised that Phil sees it this way? Anyone? Anyone? It's like being ho-blind, but even stronger.

/yes, you're gonna drag your tard-juice from thread to thread, I'm gonna follow.
 
2011-05-04 08:48:02 AM  
 
2011-05-04 08:56:13 AM  
It would be nice if we tried such things here in the us...but I'm quite sure our corporate masters and entrenched interests would never let it happen.
 
2011-05-04 09:03:16 AM  
For those who want to understand it a little better, AV explained by Cats is pretty good, and very understandable. Well worth a watch.
 
2011-05-04 09:07:46 AM  
Sounds like the "Australian ballot" (which isn't Australian, so deal with it). It's actually not a bad way to go when there are multiple candidates. It means the winner is approved of by the majority of voters. Current UK system can have a candidate who is hated by 60% of the voters and can still win. (Hated candidate: 40%, somewhat liked candidate: 35%; another candidate: 25%).

These systems all have pluses and minuses. Long-term side effects of this change would be many more parties in the UK and a difficulty in forming a majority government (like in Italy).
 
2011-05-04 09:14:19 AM  

RealityChuck: Sounds like the "Australian ballot" (which isn't Australian, so deal with it). It's actually not a bad way to go when there are multiple candidates. It means the winner is approved of by the majority of voters. Current UK system can have a candidate who is hated by 60% of the voters and can still win. (Hated candidate: 40%, somewhat liked candidate: 35%; another candidate: 25%).

These systems all have pluses and minuses. Long-term side effects of this change would be many more parties in the UK and a difficulty in forming a majority government (like in Italy).


Hasn't worked out that way in Australia at all though. We still only have 2 major parties essentially, with only a handful of minor party members. I think it has moderated the major parties though, so that they stay on the good side of most of the population. Third party voters do have more say in things these days though, as preferences count; if a Labour member gets in off the preferences of Green party voters, they'll probably remember that more while they're in power and try to work in a few green policies, so they'll keep appealing to that voter bloc.
 
2011-05-04 09:46:59 AM  
TP just doesn't make sense when you have more than two or three candidates (MPs have previously been elected on 21% of the votes cast when there have been strong independents... and less than 4% of the eligible voting population in low turn out years).

AV is a very solid alternative (although not as much as if there were an additional PR layer).

The worse thing about this whole affair has been the No Campaign, which has brought the very worse of American-style flat out lying to a UK election. I hope for future referendums (this is only the second in UK history), material which is intentionally misleading the public (rather than simply massaging the truth - the No Campaign have been simply lying) people can be seriously fined or prosecuted.

One thing we don't want is US election nonsense, regardless of the election system.
 
2011-05-04 10:22:55 AM  

Emposter: It would be nice if we tried such things here in the us...but I'm quite sure our corporate masters and entrenched interests would never let it happen.


Even without the corps I doubt the Rs or Ds would support any system that broke the strategic voting bind they've got us in. Hell, look at how much time, money and effort each spends just trying to make the other as scary as possible; they try harder to convince voters to vote against the other guy than they do trying to win votes for themselves.
 
2011-05-04 11:28:44 AM  

maddermaxx: RealityChuck: Sounds like the "Australian ballot" (which isn't Australian, so deal with it). It's actually not a bad way to go when there are multiple candidates. It means the winner is approved of by the majority of voters. Current UK system can have a candidate who is hated by 60% of the voters and can still win. (Hated candidate: 40%, somewhat liked candidate: 35%; another candidate: 25%).

These systems all have pluses and minuses. Long-term side effects of this change would be many more parties in the UK and a difficulty in forming a majority government (like in Italy).

Hasn't worked out that way in Australia at all though. We still only have 2 major parties essentially, with only a handful of minor party members. I think it has moderated the major parties though, so that they stay on the good side of most of the population. Third party voters do have more say in things these days though, as preferences count; if a Labour member gets in off the preferences of Green party voters, they'll probably remember that more while they're in power and try to work in a few green policies, so they'll keep appealing to that voter bloc.


Did you miss the part where I said that the "Australian ballot" is the name and the ballot has nothing to do with Australia? It's the name, not the description.

Welsh rabbit doesn't come from Wales, either.
 
2011-05-04 11:52:06 AM  
www.angryflower.com
 
2011-05-04 12:36:47 PM  
Interesting to note the companion article to this one mentions a real political philosophy (one voter, one vote), while this one just talks about how this will elect more liberals so it's all kittens and sunshine.

All I read was "Those bastard Torys have a bigger share of pie than we do, how dare they".

We have the same system in Maine, four way governor races, and now we have one who punches cardboard Obama in the face!

*laughs maniacally*....*sobs*
 
rmz
2011-05-04 03:27:10 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Phil Herup:


Wow, I must have missed that comment in the original thread. What a douchenozzle Phil is.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report