Some Tory twat of an MP on AV:
"Because of the second preference vote, AV can also lead to bad or inefficient MPs staying in their seats... AV leads to tactical voting, so people may end up voting for someone they don't want as their MP, which is hugely damaging for democracy – it encourages people to cast a ballot in favour of things they don't want and don't support."
I struggle to see how this can be distinguished from FPTP. Bad and inefficient MPs remain in their seats and there is also a lot of tactical voting. And as someone who votes in every election, I can say I always vote for things I don't want and don't support. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to vote.
This smug cunt clearly believes that people vote for him because they believe he's the best and because they believe in everything he says. However I don't doubt for a moment that people vote for him because they don't really have the choice; he is the least worst of all the alternatives.
By all means make the case against AV - but if your argument is that Parliament is filled with the best and that we have true choice at General Elections, then you are sure as fuck not going to win me over.
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 7:29 pm
1 Comments
1 Comments:
I suspect that AV would make far less difference than either its supporters or its opponents believe.
Any proportional representation system would mean that most, if not all, future governments would be coalitions. But under FPTP each of the major parties is itself a coalition of competing factions, some defined by ideology and some by personal loyalties, which have to find a common ground on which to campaign together.
So under AV the government would be a coalition of factions formed by negotiations between parties after the election. Under FPTP it's a coalition of factions formed by negotiations within parties before the election.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home