Wednesday, 16 February 2011

CCHQ's misleading posters

Misleading. For a start what other countries do or don't do is irrelevant. We are our own country, we make our own decisions, and I think we're proud of that fact. We have a monarchy as head of state despite most other democracies having abandoned that, we drive on the Left despite most countries driving on the right. We don't really compromise on our traditions, unless those traditions have become truly outdated.

Also, FPTP is used in less than half the countries in the world (70 countries use it in at least half of their election for their representative body, out of 203), so don't mistake that big expanse of Green to mean FPTP is used everywhere.

No-one gets more votes counted than anyone else. You could say someone's vote is counted 5 times, but you'd equally have to say that everyone else still in the vote gets their vote counted 5 times too. More here.

This is a false analogy, utterly misrepresentative of reality. If you're going to use a running race to analogise AV, then do it the right way. AV is like having multiple races, where the slowest running fails to qualify. More on this analogy being rubbish

A misrepresentation of how AV really works. "Preferences" only relate to how you rank each candidate against each other, not how you rank them compared to how others rank theirs. At the end of the day if the vote comes down to a Tory versus Lib Dem, and your 5th choice is Lib Dem you are still stating that, when choosing between the Tory and Lib Dem, you want the Lib Dem. This is just as relevant a statement, and completely fair, as mine of prefering the Tory on first preference.

If a FPTP election took place and only a Lib Dem and Tory stood, and people chose to vote the same way as they would in a final round of AV those in the No2AV camp would claim this is entirely fair and why does that change all of a sudden under AV? Answer: It doesn't. Again, read more here, and about how AV is fairer than FPTP here.

1 comment:

  1. I think these posters and the No message in general is a reflection of the paucity of arguments in favour of FPFP or against AV.

    AV and FPTP are very, very simple ideas, people should be capable of understanding both and deciding for themselves.

    Right at the start I wondered how the No campaign would occupy its time because there is so *little* to say. Unbiased public information is all that is needed.

    However the vested interests in FPTP (the 'dinosaurs' and upcoming wannabe dinosaurs) need to try to preserve their unjust advantages...


Got something to say about my post? I'd love to hear it!

Try to keep it civil, I don't delete comments unless obliged to or feel the thread is getting too out of hand, so don't make me do it.