It's all a bit academic anyway you're supposed to be voting for who will represent your constituencies interests in parliament not which party you want to run the country. My MP just happens to be David Camaron but i was informed that he wouldn't vote on an issue that affect the constituency because "It's Parliamentary tradition" for the leaders of the parties not to vote on these bills. So we vote for a representative who puts tradition before the interests of his constituents. Are we foolish to entrust power to those who desire power?
So there is no actual separation of powers between the legislative and executive in the UK government? Granted it's mostly because it's unfamiliar, but your form of government makes my head hurt!
Technically the Queen has overall power but in reality you are right. For a law to pass it nust be voted through the House of Commons then voted through the House of Lords (who are unelected) and finally approved by the current monarch.
in reality though, the paperwork goes to the queen/king and is approved, s/he has no real say, if it's passed through the commons, then the lords. it can and does go back and forth between the commons and lords, but if i remember correctly, the commons can overide what the lords say, but it has to go back and forth a couple of times.
Does the House of Lords actually retain any real import? Basically it sounds as if all the political power in the country is vested in one elected body, or do I have that wrong?
yes they do, but, the commons should the need arise can veto the lords decision. Wiki explains the house of lords much better than i can on a forum post
When it comes to Westminster elections then all parties will be pulling in the same direction, if and when they show up, with the exception of sinn fein who dont take their seats, on all the main points. Basically gimmie gimmie gimmie more money. Isn't the party that you want to run the conuntry most likely to represent you the best? At least here its pop into your local MLA's office regardless if they're elected and they'll create noise for you. although they come out of every hole during elections but they don't exactly drop off the face of the earth in between no matter how much you wish some of them would lol.
I'm going to be honest, I'm confused as to what the downsides are? It's not complicated, you just rate the candidates 1st, 2nd 3rd. Surely this means that if you're first vote doesn't win, your second is more likely, therefore giving a better representation? As it's less likely that a party that the majoriy are against, but 40% are for for example (say Labour get 40%, Conservatives 30%, Lib Dems 30%, at the moment Labour would get in? But what happens if all of the Lib Dem voters would rather have conservative over Labour, then surely AV would give a better representation of the voters wants?)
Exactly. But sadly too many people find it conflicts with eir own vested interests, e.g. "AV is bad because it just makes the Lib Dems more powerful", regardless of whether the current system woefully under-represents them at the moment. Like I said before, FPTP just encourages tribalist loyalty to a single party when most people actually sympathise with more than one candidate.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the forum of just what AV is, remember it is not PR. AV will not bring about a fairer representation of MP's, but a convoluted process of 2nd and 3rd votes being worth more than your 1st choice based on several scenarios. PR would be fairer, however leading to an indecisive coalitions. Not one of the big 3 systems are perfect. • FPTP can lead to a party winning power with less votes than the party in second place. • AV is just ridiculous • PR is fairer, but could lead to weak government.
I've never quite got why not having a strong government is a bad thing. Is the fact that to pass a proposal you'll need cross party supportand agrrement from all sides such a bad thing compared to being able to rush it through using party whips?
Without a strong government, the current ruling party struggles to pass its policies through parliament, slowing down decisions, and seriously screwing up important ones. Also a strong government should, in theory, represent the majority of the population, thus making it a fair democratic decision. A weak government does not. AV is an attempt to make sure the government gets a better representation of the public viewpoint, though is still nowhere near a perfect system. But we won't really have a perfect system until everyone gets neural implants and decisions are made in a hive mind sort of way... AV won't make the government stronger. But not much will at this point, the public just doesn't trust the government anymore. Personnally I'll be voting for AV, a friend I trust in these matters is campaigning for it, and the no2av campaign is relying on scaremongering, suggesting they don't really have a leg to stand on.
while i completely agree that the No2AV campaign is bad and seems to base their arguments on lies and fear + they havent said whos backing them (best guess would be most tories with money, wait thats all of them isnt it ?) i think the general public with vote NO because they will believe all these lies. i watched a news bit the other day and it asked 18-24 year olds how they would vote and the reasons were nonsense with most not wanting to give more power to BNP and said they didn't want the extra cost and that its difficult to understand. quite clearly the No2AV campaign is working. "People are STUPID a person is not" so while ill vote yes i think it will fail because the general ignorant population will vote NO based on what they hear from the campaign.
Thats so true, I can't believe some of the adverts the no2av campaign has, and people just gulp it down. Sad to see, but (IMO) the majority of the country don't know enough to vote, and so we will almost always get the idiots choice.
I'll be voting no, not out of ignorance but since I think AV is - as Clegg put it - a miserable little compromise. I'd go for PR despite some of its flaws (would give more extreme parties some seats if enough vote for them etc), but not AV. I agree that the no2av campaign is pretty stupid, but unfortunately it does appear to be the tactic that the UK electorate (like most, I guess) respond best to..
That and the Sun is backing the no campaign. How many of the last elections have they called. It goes a while back.
I just read the pamphlet that came through the door and my impression is this. 1) stick with the simple 'who gets the most votes wins' 2) go with a hideously complex 'lets see who doesn't get the most votes but who is more peoples second or third or fourth choice' at the 3rd of 4th iteration of vote counting. That's a no from me.
