UK says No to Av
May 6, 2011 3:11 PM Subscribe
No wins BBC reports that "more than 9,873,000 No votes have already been counted - the 50% threshold after which the Yes campaign cannot win" and that David Cameron has said the referendum had delivered a "resounding answer that settles the question" over electoral change and people now wanted the government to get on with governing in the national interest."
This post was deleted for the following reason: when th previously thread is from yesterday this probably needs to go in that thread? -- jessamyn
Great work Lib Dems, see you in the footnotes of history.
posted by orthogonality at 3:13 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by orthogonality at 3:13 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
I did RTFA but it still isn't quite clear, could someone drop some context links for those of us who haven't been following the election?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2011
Nobody could have seen the complete failure of the Lib Dem "do everything the Tories say" plan coming...
posted by Artw at 3:17 PM on May 6, 2011 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:17 PM on May 6, 2011 [8 favorites]
I'd just like to thank all the people who voted NO on principle, preferring PR to AV or some such, and swore blind that this would in no way be seen by anyone as an endorsement of FPTP.
Actually, not 'thank'. Thank was not the word I wanted to use there.
Never mind.
posted by motty at 3:22 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Actually, not 'thank'. Thank was not the word I wanted to use there.
Never mind.
posted by motty at 3:22 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
You'd think, given that I've not actually voted for anyone else in my life, that I'd feel some slight smidgen of sympathy for the Lib Dems given that they face repeated destruction at the polls and after that will be effectively dead for a generation or more...
No, not a smidge.
Fucking die in a fire, Lib Dems.
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
No, not a smidge.
Fucking die in a fire, Lib Dems.
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
Nobody could have seen the complete failure of the Lib Dem "do everything the Tories say" plan coming...
As it turns out, apparently they're not doing that bad.
And as the (far) smaller party in the coalition, it's no surprise that they'd have to make concessions to the Tories. That they have been able to get any of their policies implemented is some justification for their decision to form a coalition.
Unfortunately (for the Lib Dems at any rate) they have been burned by the headlines - tuition fees in particular.
posted by saintsguy at 3:25 PM on May 6, 2011
As it turns out, apparently they're not doing that bad.
And as the (far) smaller party in the coalition, it's no surprise that they'd have to make concessions to the Tories. That they have been able to get any of their policies implemented is some justification for their decision to form a coalition.
Unfortunately (for the Lib Dems at any rate) they have been burned by the headlines - tuition fees in particular.
posted by saintsguy at 3:25 PM on May 6, 2011
why? what were the arguments for the NO campaign? I can't think of any
posted by moorooka at 3:27 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by moorooka at 3:27 PM on May 6, 2011
I did RTFA but it still isn't quite clear, could someone drop some context links for those of us who haven't been following the election?
Previously.
posted by wpenman at 3:29 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Previously.
posted by wpenman at 3:29 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
why? what were the arguments for the NO campaign? I can't think of any
As a no voter, the biggest argument (IMHO) for NO was the inability of the yes-campaign to demonstrate a convincing case for change.
posted by saintsguy at 3:30 PM on May 6, 2011
As a no voter, the biggest argument (IMHO) for NO was the inability of the yes-campaign to demonstrate a convincing case for change.
posted by saintsguy at 3:30 PM on May 6, 2011
why? what were the arguments for the NO campaign? I can't think of any
Something about drugs being bad, I think.
posted by axiom at 3:30 PM on May 6, 2011
Something about drugs being bad, I think.
posted by axiom at 3:30 PM on May 6, 2011
Hooray! Less real democracy for all. TWUNTS!
posted by lalochezia at 3:30 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by lalochezia at 3:30 PM on May 6, 2011
Oh bugger, I was really hoping a victory in the UK might get things rolling here in the US. :(
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:32 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:32 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Never underestimate the power of encumbancy. Or Nick Clegg's pusillanimousness. If that is, indeed a word.
posted by tigrefacile at 3:33 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by tigrefacile at 3:33 PM on May 6, 2011
Incumbency even. Rum too she is powerful.
posted by tigrefacile at 3:35 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by tigrefacile at 3:35 PM on May 6, 2011
why? what were the arguments for the NO campaign? I can't think of any
There weren't any. But they made up a bunch of stuff about how it would cost money and it turned out that lying worked.
See also this excellent article listing 10 reasons the Yes campaign failed (tl;dr - it was rubbish).
posted by motty at 3:37 PM on May 6, 2011
There weren't any. But they made up a bunch of stuff about how it would cost money and it turned out that lying worked.
See also this excellent article listing 10 reasons the Yes campaign failed (tl;dr - it was rubbish).
posted by motty at 3:37 PM on May 6, 2011
I stole it from the last thread anyway...
posted by Artw at 3:42 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 3:42 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
why? what were the arguments for the NO campaign? I can't think of any
Your fathers, and your fathers' fathers, and your fathers' fathers' fathers, back to when we established universal manhood suffrage, which was actually in 1918, which is to say, after World War I (when so many died for dynastic succession so few had any stake in), and thus in living memory -- well, anyway -- once we let you un-landed plebs vote at all, all of you since Time Immemorial aka 1918 have got* screwed over by First Past The Post, so it's a hallowed British Tradition like the Roast Beef and God save our gracious Queen, Thy choicest gifts in store, On her be pleased to pour, so SUCK IT COMMONERS.
* only an American would be so gauche as to write "have gotten"
posted by orthogonality at 3:43 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
Your fathers, and your fathers' fathers, and your fathers' fathers' fathers, back to when we established universal manhood suffrage, which was actually in 1918, which is to say, after World War I (when so many died for dynastic succession so few had any stake in), and thus in living memory -- well, anyway -- once we let you un-landed plebs vote at all, all of you since Time Immemorial aka 1918 have got* screwed over by First Past The Post, so it's a hallowed British Tradition like the Roast Beef and God save our gracious Queen, Thy choicest gifts in store, On her be pleased to pour, so SUCK IT COMMONERS.
* only an American would be so gauche as to write "have gotten"
posted by orthogonality at 3:43 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
Oh bugger, I was really hoping a victory in the UK might get things rolling here in the US. :(
You'd need to get some sensible 3rd parties to vote for first. The UK is a complete disaster but at least it isn't America.
posted by public at 3:43 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
You'd need to get some sensible 3rd parties to vote for first. The UK is a complete disaster but at least it isn't America.
posted by public at 3:43 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: a complete disaster but at least it isn't America.
posted by orthogonality at 3:44 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by orthogonality at 3:44 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
why? what were the arguments for the NO campaign? I can't think of any
FUD
* only an American would be so gauche as to write "have gotten"
Not true!
posted by Jehan at 3:45 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
FUD
* only an American would be so gauche as to write "have gotten"
Not true!
posted by Jehan at 3:45 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
You'd need to get some sensible 3rd parties to vote for first.
I think it works the other way round.
posted by tigrefacile at 3:46 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
I think it works the other way round.
posted by tigrefacile at 3:46 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
You'd need to get some sensible 3rd parties to vote for first. The UK is a complete disaster but at least it isn't America.
If people are able to vote for third parties without having to effectively give up their say, then we'll surely get some third parties worth really voting for.
I do have to wonder if the UK would have had more success if they had gone with approval voting - it's less complicated and easier to understand than IRV, and doesn't have the odd cases where you can hurt your favorite candidate by voting for them. Seems like it might have been harder to turn people against it.
posted by evilangela at 3:50 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
If people are able to vote for third parties without having to effectively give up their say, then we'll surely get some third parties worth really voting for.
I do have to wonder if the UK would have had more success if they had gone with approval voting - it's less complicated and easier to understand than IRV, and doesn't have the odd cases where you can hurt your favorite candidate by voting for them. Seems like it might have been harder to turn people against it.
posted by evilangela at 3:50 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
You'd need to get some sensible 3rd parties to vote for first. The UK is a complete disaster but at least it isn't America.
Well, it would be hard to get a 3rd party going without a chance for them to have any effect.
posted by delmoi at 3:53 PM on May 6, 2011
Well, it would be hard to get a 3rd party going without a chance for them to have any effect.
posted by delmoi at 3:53 PM on May 6, 2011
Interesting data point. Not many areas voted YES. Two that did? Oxford and Cambridge.
posted by motty at 3:53 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by motty at 3:53 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
Oh, and this vote is very compelling evidence that it's extremely easy to get people to willingly and happily vote against their own interests. Or in other words, why democracy is doomed to failure over the long term.
posted by evilangela at 3:55 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by evilangela at 3:55 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
I do have to wonder if the UK would have had more success if they had gone with approval voting - it's less complicated and easier to understand than IRV, and doesn't have the odd cases where you can hurt your favorite candidate by voting for them. Seems like it might have been harder to turn people against it.
The guardian article has it. The mistake, and the mistake Ontario made 4 years ago, is putting a specific proposition forward. Copy the Québécois, just vote for change alone. Leave the details to be worked out later. You might still fail, but the odds of success are much higher.
posted by Chuckles at 3:55 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
The guardian article has it. The mistake, and the mistake Ontario made 4 years ago, is putting a specific proposition forward. Copy the Québécois, just vote for change alone. Leave the details to be worked out later. You might still fail, but the odds of success are much higher.
posted by Chuckles at 3:55 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
There didn't need to be any arguments for the No campaign. In the absence of a convincing case for change, the electorate will reject it. The Yes campaign came out with an awful lot of woolly sounding talking points and vague promises about more accountable politicians which were not widely believed.
I'm sure the No campaign made some stuff up about costs and all that, but I don't think that swayed many people.
The problem is that AV is so similar to FPTP that it is quite difficult to explain to voters why it's better at all.
posted by atrazine at 3:57 PM on May 6, 2011
I'm sure the No campaign made some stuff up about costs and all that, but I don't think that swayed many people.
The problem is that AV is so similar to FPTP that it is quite difficult to explain to voters why it's better at all.
posted by atrazine at 3:57 PM on May 6, 2011
The problem is that AV is so similar to FPTP that it is quite difficult to explain to voters why it's better at all.
Huh? Oh, the no campaign is still making stuff up, even after they've won. Got it :P
posted by Chuckles at 4:02 PM on May 6, 2011
Huh? Oh, the no campaign is still making stuff up, even after they've won. Got it :P
posted by Chuckles at 4:02 PM on May 6, 2011
The number one reason from the "10 reasons the AV referendum was lost" article linked above:
posted by grouse at 4:02 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
If the lack of a hate figure was the gaping hole for the yes side, Nick Clegg provided an unbeatable one for the noes. The man himself recognised that voters wanted to poke him in the eye, and he dutifully kept a fairly low profile in the campaign that was by far the most visible single concession that he obtained from the Conservatives. Shrewd as it was for him to go to ground, it could not prevent the noes from warning that "President Clegg" would be kept forever in power by everybody's second preferences. He had a horrendous hand to play last year, but he made things worse for himself by appearing to the country as a head boy thrilled at being unexpectedly tasked with helping to run the school. When the headteacher and his staff meted out their long-planned litany of horrors, it was not they but Clegg who felt the force of the pupils' revolt. Having once dismissed Gordon Brown's pre-election promise of an AV referendum as doomed by association with him, there is a bitter irony here. It is not association with Brown but association with Clegg that has now sunk the electoral reform he was so desperate to achieve.Ouch.
posted by grouse at 4:02 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Oh, and this vote is very compelling evidence that it's extremely easy to get people to willingly and happily vote against their own interests. Or in other words, why democracy is doomed to failure over the long term.
Because of course, that is the only possible explanation for voting No. What interests exactly are people voting against? I'm not sure that rejecting the replacement of a centuries old voting system with one that is an improvement in some vague way that Huhne is eager to bore me about is really the best example of people voting against their own interests.
The guardian article has it. The mistake, and the mistake Ontario made 4 years ago, is putting a specific proposition forward.
Then why have a referendum? Parliament is supreme and doesn't need anyone's permissions to make any changes it desires to the way elections are run. A lot of people would argue that as a matter of democratic legitimacy a change as fundamental as this has to be put to the people.
posted by atrazine at 4:04 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Because of course, that is the only possible explanation for voting No. What interests exactly are people voting against? I'm not sure that rejecting the replacement of a centuries old voting system with one that is an improvement in some vague way that Huhne is eager to bore me about is really the best example of people voting against their own interests.
The guardian article has it. The mistake, and the mistake Ontario made 4 years ago, is putting a specific proposition forward.
Then why have a referendum? Parliament is supreme and doesn't need anyone's permissions to make any changes it desires to the way elections are run. A lot of people would argue that as a matter of democratic legitimacy a change as fundamental as this has to be put to the people.
posted by atrazine at 4:04 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
vague promises about more accountable politicians
Even if you could get root them out on the spot the suspicion remains that bad politicians are like shark's teeth. They all move one forward to fill any gap. The thing is that the British people want to be heard. But the opinions they want to express are about pop singers and dog acts and they want to pay ten pence (considerably more from mobiles) for the privilege. Everything, of course, is rubbish nowadays.
posted by tigrefacile at 4:06 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
Even if you could get root them out on the spot the suspicion remains that bad politicians are like shark's teeth. They all move one forward to fill any gap. The thing is that the British people want to be heard. But the opinions they want to express are about pop singers and dog acts and they want to pay ten pence (considerably more from mobiles) for the privilege. Everything, of course, is rubbish nowadays.
posted by tigrefacile at 4:06 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
Huh? Oh, the no campaign is still making stuff up, even after they've won. Got it :P
I'm personally a fan of PR which is what my country uses. I'm not an English voter, so what I think does not matter. My point is that the Yes campaign did not manage to put forward a convincing narrative to the voters. A lot of people I spoke to in the last few days were very unclear as to what exactly AV was going to fix, and were not planning to vote.
posted by atrazine at 4:07 PM on May 6, 2011
I'm personally a fan of PR which is what my country uses. I'm not an English voter, so what I think does not matter. My point is that the Yes campaign did not manage to put forward a convincing narrative to the voters. A lot of people I spoke to in the last few days were very unclear as to what exactly AV was going to fix, and were not planning to vote.
posted by atrazine at 4:07 PM on May 6, 2011
Even if you could get root them out on the spot the suspicion remains that bad politicians are like shark's teeth. They all move one forward to fill any gap.
Precisely, and the Yes campaign put a bunch of technocratic politicians and B-list actors out there to convince people that their solution would fix that. The problem is that these pols have claimed to have the solution so many times now that no-one believes them when they have a real solution to propose.
posted by atrazine at 4:10 PM on May 6, 2011
Precisely, and the Yes campaign put a bunch of technocratic politicians and B-list actors out there to convince people that their solution would fix that. The problem is that these pols have claimed to have the solution so many times now that no-one believes them when they have a real solution to propose.
posted by atrazine at 4:10 PM on May 6, 2011
For the second time I wish 10 O'Clock Live was still around, as I can see them having a field day with this.
posted by JHarris at 4:10 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by JHarris at 4:10 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
My point is that the Yes campaign did not manage to put forward a convincing narrative to the voters.
Absolutely. The YES campaign was a complete disaster. I've been a solid YES since the thing was announced and the main thing that stopped me getting more actively involved was how irredeemably annoying it was on every level, to the extent that I began by the end to suspect that it was being directed by closet NOs.
posted by motty at 4:13 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. The YES campaign was a complete disaster. I've been a solid YES since the thing was announced and the main thing that stopped me getting more actively involved was how irredeemably annoying it was on every level, to the extent that I began by the end to suspect that it was being directed by closet NOs.
posted by motty at 4:13 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
The point about narratives is important. The narrative of No that I heard the most was that AV was more likely to allow parties like the BNP access to real power. I can imagine that was enough to put plenty of people off.
posted by tigrefacile at 4:14 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by tigrefacile at 4:14 PM on May 6, 2011
That'll be why the BNP campaigned for 'NO' then.
Walking away from the computer now
posted by motty at 4:17 PM on May 6, 2011
Walking away from the computer now
posted by motty at 4:17 PM on May 6, 2011
Oh, and this vote is very compelling evidence that it's extremely easy to get people to willingly and happily vote against their own interests. Or in other words, why democracy is doomed to failure over the long term.
Because of course, that is the only possible explanation for voting No. What interests exactly are people voting against? I'm not sure that rejecting the replacement of a centuries old voting system with one that is an improvement in some vague way that Huhne is eager to bore me about is really the best example of people voting against their own interests.
I'm not saying that's the only reason people voted no - but that once you have a basic understanding of the differences between the voting systems, it becomes very clear that regardless of its' flaws, IRV ("alternative vote") is significantly better than FPTP in many ways. It's definitely in the interest of the vast majority of the people to have a system that will allow them to better express their preferences, doesn't force them to compromise nearly as much, and will pick a winner that's significantly closer to the ideal in almost every case.
The people turned it down, saying no to something that would have significant positive results for them, and that's the case no matter what the reason is that they turned it down. That they didn't know it was in their own best interests doesn't mean they didn't vote against them - and I think further illustrates my point. In the end, the reasons people vote as they do may have little to do with what they're actually voting on.
posted by evilangela at 4:18 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
Because of course, that is the only possible explanation for voting No. What interests exactly are people voting against? I'm not sure that rejecting the replacement of a centuries old voting system with one that is an improvement in some vague way that Huhne is eager to bore me about is really the best example of people voting against their own interests.
I'm not saying that's the only reason people voted no - but that once you have a basic understanding of the differences between the voting systems, it becomes very clear that regardless of its' flaws, IRV ("alternative vote") is significantly better than FPTP in many ways. It's definitely in the interest of the vast majority of the people to have a system that will allow them to better express their preferences, doesn't force them to compromise nearly as much, and will pick a winner that's significantly closer to the ideal in almost every case.
The people turned it down, saying no to something that would have significant positive results for them, and that's the case no matter what the reason is that they turned it down. That they didn't know it was in their own best interests doesn't mean they didn't vote against them - and I think further illustrates my point. In the end, the reasons people vote as they do may have little to do with what they're actually voting on.
posted by evilangela at 4:18 PM on May 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
This is going to be trotted out as precedent now every time my country—Canada—considers discussing similar electoral reform, which should be every day of every year, but which will probably be once in the next two decades. Thanks for fucking it up for the rest of us, Clegg 'n' Co.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 4:25 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by tapesonthefloor at 4:25 PM on May 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
Didn't Bevin say something like "the Conservative party works to get the working class to vote against their interests." (Althigh if memory serves, he put it much better than that).
I am so sad and angry at this. All the lies, both Labour and Tory. I saw Beckett On Channel 4 news the other day, and she was saying people should say no. And that Warsi, she talked about Cable street and the fight with the Fascists. She quotes that to us as evidence against AV? She wasn't even here then, the bloody audacity of it. As Cohen says "people with brown skin can be as fascist as people with white skin.£
posted by marienbad at 4:26 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I am so sad and angry at this. All the lies, both Labour and Tory. I saw Beckett On Channel 4 news the other day, and she was saying people should say no. And that Warsi, she talked about Cable street and the fight with the Fascists. She quotes that to us as evidence against AV? She wasn't even here then, the bloody audacity of it. As Cohen says "people with brown skin can be as fascist as people with white skin.£
posted by marienbad at 4:26 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
That'll be why the BNP campaigned for 'NO' then.
The BNP are undoubtedly not the best arbiters of what's good for the country. Or of what's good for the BNP. Insinuations from William Hague are likely to be listened to nationwide, whereas the position of Nick Griffin of electoral reform is of little interest to anyone, even in Barking.
posted by tigrefacile at 4:33 PM on May 6, 2011
The BNP are undoubtedly not the best arbiters of what's good for the country. Or of what's good for the BNP. Insinuations from William Hague are likely to be listened to nationwide, whereas the position of Nick Griffin of electoral reform is of little interest to anyone, even in Barking.
posted by tigrefacile at 4:33 PM on May 6, 2011
AV would probably be very little use to the BNP anyway... who votes Nazi as their second choice?
posted by Artw at 4:38 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:38 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
PR makes sense. The campaign was managed badly though. In NZ it came from grass roots reform and was harder to discredit because of that. Deep breath. It will occur someday.
posted by aychedee at 4:39 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by aychedee at 4:39 PM on May 6, 2011
oh, and in under-reported good news the BNP got thoroughly stomped this election. Minor yay.
posted by Artw at 4:40 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:40 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
As Cohen says "people with brown skin can be as fascist as people with white skin.
Yeah, man! The fascists! With their nazi like opinions - wrong opinions! - on voting reform! Fuck the no kkkampaign!
Jesus.
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 4:46 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yeah, man! The fascists! With their nazi like opinions - wrong opinions! - on voting reform! Fuck the no kkkampaign!
Jesus.
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 4:46 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Salvor Hardin: Oh bugger, I was really hoping a victory in the UK might get things rolling here in the US. :
You mean lead the US to switch from First Past The Post to a more pluralist voting system and in effect encourage the growth of more than a paltry two political parties?
That will never, ever happen.
posted by paisley henosis at 4:57 PM on May 6, 2011
You mean lead the US to switch from First Past The Post to a more pluralist voting system and in effect encourage the growth of more than a paltry two political parties?
That will never, ever happen.
posted by paisley henosis at 4:57 PM on May 6, 2011
If the US didn't follow every western country's lead to provide health care for its citizens why the hell would it follow them on voting reform?
posted by Talez at 4:59 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Talez at 4:59 PM on May 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well played, Tories. Convincing the Lib Dems that, if only they would act as the human shields for your ultra-Thatcherite policies, they'd get their precious little referendum, and then hitting the public hard, so by the time the referendum came around, they despised anything associated with the Lib Dems. Well played, you evil pigfuckers.
Perhaps it'd be better to just give up on democracy in Britain and install Rupert Murdoch as Emperor? It'd have more or less the same result, but at a lower cost.
posted by acb at 5:00 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
Perhaps it'd be better to just give up on democracy in Britain and install Rupert Murdoch as Emperor? It'd have more or less the same result, but at a lower cost.
posted by acb at 5:00 PM on May 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
"Evil pigfuckers" is a bit mild, no?
posted by motty at 5:02 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by motty at 5:02 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Nick Clegg accepted the result with rather more good grace than has been shown around here - "I wish I could say this was a photo finish but it isn't, the result is very clear. I'm a passionate supporter of political reform but when the answer is as clear as this, you have got to accept it." Calling the people who voted against what you wanted 'twunts' or claiming that 'democracy is doomed' isn't very constructive. The "yes" campaign was better funded than the "no" one but entirely failed to make its case.
If you support PR then calling the Liberal Democrats every name under the sun while simultaneously slagging off the British people makes no sense either, the Lib strategy for decades has been to get into a coalition government in a hung parliament with a referendum on electoral reform as the price. If they won that referendum they'd then be permanently in power, instead of almost permanently out of it. Well, they got their chance and it turned out Britain wasn't hungering for electoral reform after all. Much of the grass roots Labour party - who have more to lose under PR than anyone - campaigned against it too.
Oxford and Cambridge did vote for it, and on the current incomplete figures so did 8 other places - and 400 have voted against. If you believe in democracy then you have to accept the will of the people, like freedom of speech it's a good thing in itself, no just when people you agree with have the upper hand.
posted by joannemullen at 5:02 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you support PR then calling the Liberal Democrats every name under the sun while simultaneously slagging off the British people makes no sense either, the Lib strategy for decades has been to get into a coalition government in a hung parliament with a referendum on electoral reform as the price. If they won that referendum they'd then be permanently in power, instead of almost permanently out of it. Well, they got their chance and it turned out Britain wasn't hungering for electoral reform after all. Much of the grass roots Labour party - who have more to lose under PR than anyone - campaigned against it too.
Oxford and Cambridge did vote for it, and on the current incomplete figures so did 8 other places - and 400 have voted against. If you believe in democracy then you have to accept the will of the people, like freedom of speech it's a good thing in itself, no just when people you agree with have the upper hand.
posted by joannemullen at 5:02 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you believe in democracy then you have to accept the will of the people
Folk'll vote for owt.
posted by Jehan at 5:06 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Folk'll vote for owt.
posted by Jehan at 5:06 PM on May 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Am I reading that Guardian article correctly? It sounds like people are saying this failed -- in part -- because people don't like Nick Clegg. I don't understand that at all (I am an American).
posted by benito.strauss at 5:07 PM on May 6, 2011
posted by benito.strauss at 5:07 PM on May 6, 2011
You mean lead the US to switch from First Past The Post to a more pluralist voting system and in effect encourage the growth of more than a paltry two political parties?
That will never, ever happen.
First Past The Post is better for the true powers that be (and I'm not talking about the Illuminati or the Freemasons here but about hedge funds, investment funds and such), who don't like too much democracy. They don't want Greens or religious parties or whatever buggering up the finely oiled machine they sit in the driver's seat of. On the other hand, outright dictatorship has problems: firstly, you get the "bad emperor" problem, where an inept or corrupt leader can stay in power, doing damage and beyond the ability of the stakeholders of the system to depose. The ideal system for the stakeholders' interest is a low-fidelity form of democracy: just enough to keep anyone too unpopular from outstaying their welcome, and give the little people the illusion of being stakeholders in the system. If anything, the US system, with its electoral-college system which almost completely eliminates third parties, is superior to UK-style FPTP for this. Once there are only two parties, they will, by necessity, become so large that they become unanswerable to the little people, and become instruments of a homogeneous policy.
posted by acb at 5:07 PM on May 6, 2011 [8 favorites]
That will never, ever happen.
First Past The Post is better for the true powers that be (and I'm not talking about the Illuminati or the Freemasons here but about hedge funds, investment funds and such), who don't like too much democracy. They don't want Greens or religious parties or whatever buggering up the finely oiled machine they sit in the driver's seat of. On the other hand, outright dictatorship has problems: firstly, you get the "bad emperor" problem, where an inept or corrupt leader can stay in power, doing damage and beyond the ability of the stakeholders of the system to depose. The ideal system for the stakeholders' interest is a low-fidelity form of democracy: just enough to keep anyone too unpopular from outstaying their welcome, and give the little people the illusion of being stakeholders in the system. If anything, the US system, with its electoral-college system which almost completely eliminates third parties, is superior to UK-style FPTP for this. Once there are only two parties, they will, by necessity, become so large that they become unanswerable to the little people, and become instruments of a homogeneous policy.
posted by acb at 5:07 PM on May 6, 2011 [8 favorites]
« Older Stonybridge! | "You should become a giraffe." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by marienbad at 3:12 PM on May 6, 2011