British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today • Hacker News Board

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#91

Post by hugh3 » Thu, May 05, 2011, 4:25 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #16

(I voted "Yes" at 8am.) If I didn't have any views on which system is better, I would have been pursuaded to vote Yes by the "Vote No" adverts, such as http://i.imgur.com/yCyLv.jpg Admitedly, the campaign for "Vote Yes" has frankly been terrible as well, but in a way that makes you think they don't have a clue about marketing, rather than a way that makes you want to strangle whoever came up with the adverts.

I would have been pursuaded to vote Yes by the "Vote No" adverts, such as http://i.imgur.com/yCyLv.jpg*
That's a pretty dumb ad. I was indeed wondering what the best argument of the "No" campaign would be, and if that's it then that's not much of a campaign.

Still, I gotta wonder -- have they really* budgeted two hundred and fifty million pounds for a new voting system, or is this a made-up number? Because where the hell does that money go?

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#92

Post by corin_ » Thu, May 05, 2011, 4:27 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #91

corin_ wrote: post #16

(I voted "Yes" at 8am.) If I didn't have any views on which system is better, I would have been pursuaded to vote Yes by the "Vote No" adverts, such as http://i.imgur.com/yCyLv.jpg Admitedly, the campaign for "Vote Yes" has frankly been terrible as well, but in a way that makes you think they don't have a clue about marketing, rather than a way that makes you want to strangle whoever came up with the adverts.

I would have been pursuaded to vote Yes by the "Vote No" adverts, such as http://i.imgur.com/yCyLv.jpg* That's a pretty dumb ad. I was indeed wondering what the best argument of the "No" campaign would be, and if that's it then that's not much of a campaign. Still, I gotta wonder -- have they really* budgeted two hundred and fifty million pounds for a new voting system, or is this a made-up number? Because where the…

Rather than wording myself, here's a quote from the BBC's FAQ:

"The No campaign has said the poll will cost about £90m to stage and that an extra £156m will be incurred in switching to AV. The Yes campaign has accused its rivals of "lies", saying the claims are largely based on the alleged cost of introducing electronic counting machines and that these are not required for AV elections. The government has said holding the referendum on the same day as other elections around the UK will save about £17m."

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#93

Post by McP » Thu, May 05, 2011, 4:42 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #90

nl wrote: post #18

Speaking as an Australian (we have preferential voting): Almost anything is better than first past the post.

I can't understand why they bother with this one-alternative thing though. If you're gonna mark two preferences, why not mark 'em all?

You can mark as many preferences as you like. Alternative Vote is a misnomer, it's known as Instant Runoff Vote elsewhere, which better describes how it works.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#94

Post by MikeTaylor » Thu, May 05, 2011, 4:52 PM UTC

_b8r0 wrote: post #87

I can't stand the Yes campaign. I really, really can't. The smug superiority of it all, the assumption that if you vote no you must be mentally ill and the inability to even debate. To be fair I've had a lot of exposure to people involved in the Yes campaign. I'm not someone who likes being patronised by a hive mind and that's exactly how the Yes campaign comes across. On the logic of the campaign, giving the options…

iuguy, a few things. Most important I really don't believe that "it will make no difference to me as my constituency is a safe tory seat, even with all the simulations." Even if it doesn't change who actually wins, implementing AV can send a clear message to your incumbent by (for example) showing that 25% of the constituents actually want the Green candidate to win (rather than just the 5% who actually voted for her under FPTP, knowing their vote would be wasted). That seems important to me -- it changes the slope of the playing field.

For the same reason, I am not skeptical enough to accept that "this isn't genuine electoral reform, this is tinkering around the edges". AV would make a HUGE difference to me, for the simple reason that it would relieve me of the responsibility to lie when I vote (i.e. claiming that I want the winner to be someone who is actually my second or third choice).

And for those who actually want PR: we are MUCH more likely to get it in our lifetimes if AV wins this referendum than if it loses; in the latter case, the incumbents really will all say "so that's all right then -- everyone likes how we do it now". Which is so very not true that it makes my guts hurt just to type it.

So even if you think AV is only a small step (and for the record I think it's a big one), please vote for it. It is (among other things) a stepping stone to a more comprehensive referendum on voting systems, similar to the one they had in New Zealand -- see http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/2011/05/05/the-uk-gets-to-decid...

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#95

Post by dazzawazza » Thu, May 05, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

seabee wrote: post #66

GeneralWaste wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some in the UK hold the opinion that the Liberal Democrats capitulated too easily to the Conservatives during the negotiation process that led to the formation of our current government. Whilst they only have a relatively small number of MPs they still hold the balance of power and could perhaps have held out for PR. Their apparent willingness to compromise this and other principles of their party in exchange for a s…

Bear in mind that Labour offered AV with no referendum necessary, but did not have the seats to form a majority with the Lib Dems alone. Had they upped their offer to (a referendum on) PR it would have had the support of the minor parties and likely would've passed; however, all other issues would face severe compromise and difficulty, so being in opposition benefits Labour (a party that doesn't need PR, even if it d…

It's also important to remember that neither the Lib Dems nor Labour could afford another general election.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#96

Post by Super_Jambo » Thu, May 05, 2011, 6:49 PM UTC

seabee wrote: post #66

GeneralWaste wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some in the UK hold the opinion that the Liberal Democrats capitulated too easily to the Conservatives during the negotiation process that led to the formation of our current government. Whilst they only have a relatively small number of MPs they still hold the balance of power and could perhaps have held out for PR. Their apparent willingness to compromise this and other principles of their party in exchange for a s…

Bear in mind that Labour offered AV with no referendum necessary, but did not have the seats to form a majority with the Lib Dems alone. Had they upped their offer to (a referendum on) PR it would have had the support of the minor parties and likely would've passed; however, all other issues would face severe compromise and difficulty, so being in opposition benefits Labour (a party that doesn't need PR, even if it d…

Given Labour had 12 years of solid majority government, in which time they had a mandate from the electorate for electoral reform (manifesto promise). And given the No camp has more Labour MPs than the Yes.

I feel you cannot state that Labour in any way desires electoral reform.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#97

Post by Super_Jambo » Thu, May 05, 2011, 6:55 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #42

hnhg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A spoiled vote is the traditional way of expressing that.

I used to do that, but the problem is spoiled votes are lumped together for reporting purposes, so there's no real way to judge whether people are protesting, finding the ballot form confusing, or whatever.

The ballot form has a 'yes' and a 'no' box on it...

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#98

Post by goatforce5 » Thu, May 05, 2011, 7:35 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #88

goatforce5 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia every polling booth has party volunteers handing out How To Vote flyers showing how they recommend you distribute your preferences. So if you like the Greens but don't really know where those two obscure independents fit in to the picture, you'd just follow their guidance on whether to put them at the top or the bottom of the list. I suspect most Australians probably just follow their preferred candidate…

I suspect most Australians probably just follow their preferred candidates preferences Do they really? I never have, and I've never understood the mindset that would. Maybe I will vote for you, Mr Candidate, but I'm not gonna take your advice on the numbers I stick in everybody else's boxes... especially since those numbers probably indicate whatever deals you've made rather than some actual order of preferability ba…

The link says most people just go along party lines.

Even though in many electorates your vote will end up going to Liberal or Labor, the path it takes to get there is super important. That's kinda the point. If you think the environment is a really important issue, go vote Green because typically they'll have worked out a deal with one of majors to get some of their issues addressed.

You like smoking pot and there's a nutty local candidate who'll never be voted in in a million years and who none of the major parties will have bothered to do deals with? He's still worth a vote so that once the election is over the other candidates can see there's some people who consider it an important issue.

The entire beauty of preferential voting is it gives some voice to the other candidates in shaping policies, regardless of who gets in.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#99

Post by hugh3 » Thu, May 05, 2011, 8:47 PM UTC

goatforce5 wrote: post #98

hugh3 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect most Australians probably just follow their preferred candidates preferences Do they really? I never have, and I've never understood the mindset that would. Maybe I will vote for you, Mr Candidate, but I'm not gonna take your advice on the numbers I stick in everybody else's boxes... especially since those numbers probably indicate whatever deals you've made rather than some actual order of preferability ba…

The link says most people just go along party lines. Even though in many electorates your vote will end up going to Liberal or Labor, the path it takes to get there is super important. That's kinda the point. If you think the environment is a really important issue, go vote Green because typically they'll have worked out a deal with one of majors to get some of their issues addressed. You like smoking pot and there's…

Fair enough. The other advantage is that it really does let us know when fringe candidates are fringe. If the nutty independent gets 3% of the vote then he can't say "I woulda got elected if it weren't for this damn two-party system"... we just look at him and say that, yep, he really is on the fringe.

Personally my strategy is to always vote number 1 for someone I'm pretty sure is going to get less than 4% of the vote. Why? Electoral funding rules. The government gives the parties money for their election campaigns based on how many votes they get. Except for folks who get less than 4% of the vote -- they get nothing. So if you vote 1 for a major party you're voting for taxpayer money to be given to political parties (yeech) but if you vote for some minor Or so I've heard. I've never actually verified that this is true.

I'm also one of the few people who actually fills out every box below the line on the upper-house ballot sheets. A few years ago I think there were two hundred and something candidates, so I just wound up numbering consecutively in pretty spirals and so forth. Then I folded my ballot paper into a hat and wore it across the room to the box. They glared at me.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#100

Post by hugh3 » Thu, May 05, 2011, 8:57 PM UTC

seabee wrote: post #71

MikeTaylor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS ridiculous. But people have been TOLD that AV is too complicated for their simple little minds, and too many of them seem to have accepted this statement uncritically. It breaks my heart.

Unless it's something they care about (and not everyone cares about voting reform!), being told "Don't worry about it, it's too hard to explain" is often met with "Oh, okay." The trick is to get people to care about it so they become curious and reject the assertions of "it's too hard". The Yes campaign attempted this initially but did a poor job, in this case it turns out much easier to explain the thing than to pos…

Ultimately I suspect everyone knows that "it's too complicated" is a fake argument. The real reason that Tories don't want PR is that it will spell an end to proper Tory governments. Meanwhile, the real reason that Labour doesn't want PR is that it will spell an end to proper Labour governments. The only folks who are really keen on PR are the Lib Dems, whose power it would massively increase.

And ultimately, the population follows the parties -- unless you are a LibDem supporter you probably don't especially want to see the LibDems holding the balance of power in every parliament for the next fifty years.