Sorry to bring us down to politics but watching the news this evening it seems that the only important thing happening - no not more earthquakes or tsunamis in NZ or Japan, not the war in Afghansistan, not the conflict in Libya - but - and this will last the next two and a half weeks - whether we should put an x or a 1,2,3 on our voting papers Should we hope for some real news to drown it out
I cant vote here as not a citizen ,merely a resident!just as well coz noggy politics makes american politics seem simple! theres about 20 odd different parties in 4 or 5 differing alliances!
Alternative music Alternative medicine Alternative fuel Alternative parking Alternative voting All the same but not as good as the original. If we have PR for Euro-elections why not use the same scheme for general elections. Why do we have to vote on a system that Australia has and doesn't want, Papau New Guinea has and is getting rid of and Fiji? Also a number of other places for mayoral elections and in the Republic of Ireland for Presidential elections.
Its a system that let a little known person called hitler come to power. Vote no please! Its the end of parliamentry democracy and the start of rule by compromise
ÃÂslendingar who have 18 years or more vote. The Alþingi has 63 representatives and is elected from secret proportional vote for four years. ÃÂsland has six constituencies with nine seats in parliament, divided to the proportions of voting in that constituency. There are nine other seats are divided to political parties so that the representation of each in the Alþingi is close as possible the total votes it received. Only parties receiving at 5% or more of votes can be allocated these seats. Anyway this works here.
I wasn't aware that Australia doesn't want it. Like everything in life, there are always those for and those against, but as far as I'm aware most of us Aussies are still perfectly happy with the system. As for Fiji, I don't think it matters what system is in place. They have a history of military intervention when the indigenous Fijians feel threatened by a non-indigenous takeover.
AV is better than First Past the post - but not as good as full and proper Proportional Representation. FPTP is only good where you have two big parties who don't want to let anyone else get in on their ruling elite.
BB I saw that Australia thing as a comment somewhere and copied it. To me the situation is strange that Britain has one system of voting for national elections and another for European elections and now they want to throw one away for a third style. Why not make the system being replaced common for national and European then people would understand better.
No matter what the system it will fail due to human nature, remember all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others!
Ah but 1984 was a long time ago now Norway. Somewhat hypocritical of parties who use PR to elect their own leaders but dont want to allow it in General Elections. As I say it is just the big two have traditionally opposed it to stop a third party getting in there and spoiling their "my turn, now your turn" game. With PR you can vote for who you really want - in FPTP you sometimes need to vote for the cndidate that will keep out the one you really DONT want. How can anyone say it is not democratic or fair or representative? It is far more of all of these
For disclosure I'll be voting yes. But on a slight tangent, two things cross my mind: 1. The biggest argument against AV is that it is not one person, one vote. But the Tories rejected a referendum on PR, and it's a pretty safe bet that if Labour genuinely offered it, the Lib Dems and a sufficient number of minority MPs would have gone for it. 2. In Ed Miliband's words, the No campaign want Nick Clegg to be the poster boy for the Yes campaign. Imagine the furore if the Yes campaign decided to take the same approach with Nick Griffin, an equally vocal opponent of AV. Mysteriously, the media seem to be ignoring him. I'm not suggesting for a second that either of these are good reasons to go for AV, but both highlight the hypocritical nature of the No campaign. We have this referendum not because the Lib Dems demanded it (if Brown and Cameron both said no, it wasn't going to happen). We're having it because 2011 is the first time in a generation that this referendum could conceivably end in a No vote, and because AV is considered less likely to win popular support than some form of PR.
To be honest I am not really very political - certainly not "party political" - I always have thought I would vote for anyone who would actually keep 10% of their promises - guess I am rather cynical. One thing I tend to prefer about PR is that it is more likely to prevent a fairly extreme major party getting in on a slim vote and then doing radical things. Think of what might be now if the Tories were on their own - the Coalition is coming in for enough criticism even with the Libs theoretically "restraining" them. You are less likely to get a right wing extreme like Maggie Thatcher wielding massive power under PR - they should be more moderate on the whole as it needs some sort of conscensus - for many though this would be the exact reason to reject PR as they want "strong" government
I am afraid that we leap from one extreme to the other, but now the famous middle ground is what it all seems to be about. However, there does seem to be a difference in recent politics. By that I mean in this term of office. The last Labour govt should be devastated that it left a larger gap between rich and poor, the most damning economic statistic of their administration.
