Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Yet more distortion from No2AV

After the rubbish that was their first advert the No2AV campaign have gone for simple declarative statements in their next showing.

"Sometime political enemies have come together in the campaign to stop the change in our voting system."

Well fine except sometime political enemies have come together to campaign for the change in our voting system; so that's balanced out.
"AV would be wrong for Britain. It is obscure, it's unfair, it's expensive. It could mean that people who come third in elections will end up winning. It will make out politics less accountable and I believe it will be a backwards step for our country."

Do I really need to do this again? [Sigh] obviously yes. Firstly what a pathetic argument to start with "It is obscure" as I've said many a time this is the 'if it's so good why doesn't everyone do it?' argument to which the answer is 'because every time someone proposes it some idiot says that'. "It's unfair" really how? Nope just stating that's fine for us thickos. "It's expensive" no it's not it will require minimal changes from the current system. "people who come third in elections will end up winning" No. People who would come third in FPTP may win under AV, but the person who comes third in AV will never win, that would be the prerogative of the person who won. "It will make our politics less accountable" What less accountable than the current system whereby an MP only has to please a core set of voters to get elected? And just as an aside if you think this system is so bad why does every major party use it (or a form of it) to elect their leader?
"It's a positive campaign. It is defending the right of one person one vote. A system that has been the foundation and the cornerstone of our democracy for generations"
Oh dear "a positive campaign" where has he been? This has never been positive, it's never been about defending; it's been a vicious negative attack from the get-go. As for one person, one vote [sigh] other than the fact that's what we'd still have I find it interesting to note how he doesn't give a date or general span of time other than generations. Why? Because one person one vote wasn't brought into law until 1948! This isn't some long venerated tradition of our democracy it's less than 100 years old.
"Every one of out fellow citizens irrespective of their background or their station in life"
Another fundamental right dating all the way back to 2000 when those who had no permanent residency were allowed to declare a "declaration of local connection" to allow them to vote.
"As people have learnt more about what this would mean they've started to reject the alternative vote"
Or they've believed all the rubbish you keep spouting; to whit:
"There are only three countries in the world that use AV at the moment: Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Fiji."
Yes so? As the 10 o'clock show put it - the majority of the world is also starving does that mean we should starve too?
"I don't think that we should be spending that type of money on a system that already works"
"£550 million is a waste of money"
Except a) we're not going to be spending "that type of money" and b) that's like saying we shouldn't ever bother improving anything ever if it "works".
"The problems that could happen introducing AV is the complexity"
You know what I'll agree with that. It is more complex, but not by much.
"People won't understand it. People probably won't even bother to go and vote"
Because it's so difficult to understand and we're all rather thick.
"It needs to be a fair system where whoever gets the most votes wins"
So you'll be voting Yes to AV then?
"We should keep one person one vote"
Yes I agree, but both systems have that.
"If you think we should keep a system that's simple and straightforward"
Despite how unfair it is.
"and has stood us in good stead"
For an entire 63 years.
"If you want a system that elects a government rather than having decisions after the election about policies and programmes"
You mean just like when the last FPTP election landed us a coalition?

As per usual a complete waste of time and once again they're not open to debate as comments are closed for this video.