I saw it this evening. They are clearly trying to convince people that AV is terribly complicated. It isn't. And, of course, the suggestion that the candidate who finishes last can be declared the winner is a blatant lie.

Has anyone seen the 'No to AV' advert? Rik Mayall is an embarassment, he's ruined the Alan B'stard character. And the kid talking about the roulette wheel isn't going to do them any favours either.

That advert actually angers me. SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH IT.

Surely it's illegal to lie in such a blatant manner?

 

If it's not then it bloody well should be.

Surely it's illegal to lie in such a blatant manner?

 

If it's not then it bloody well should be.

 

Which lie though? The one about the guy who came 4th winning under AV, that could theoretically happen but it's so horrendously unlikely that it's not worth mentioning.

None of the falsehoods in that advert can really be proven as falsehoods though, which is the annoying thing. You could say that ANY voting system gives the advantage to people who promise the world: there's no way to prove that it does or doesn't.

At least the Yes campaign broadcast only said that candidates would have to "aim for" getting 50% of the vote and that there would be fewer jobs for life rather than claiming that AV would end the concept of safe seats. I just hope they use a future broadcast (and other material) to nail the lie that supporters of minor parties would get more votes than supporters of major parties.

I found the 'Yes' ad to by quite cringeworthy, although not as bad as the 'no' advert.

 

I'm starting to be drawn to the 'Yes' side now, under the pretence that it will be more fun than the current system. Probably not the most noble reason to vote 'yes', but every little helps.

Minor parties and particularly extremists do best under FPTP - there are very few people who would ever consider BNP a second, third or even fourth choice - only first - and these same people are unlikely to ever put a second choice - therefore if the extremist candidate is first to be eliminated it is unlikely the second choices of their supporters, if made, will make much difference.

 

Baroness Warsi is a f***ing idiot.

Minor parties and particularly extremists do best under FPTP - there are very few people who would ever consider BNP a second, third or even fourth choice - only first - and these same people are unlikely to ever put a second choice - therefore if the extremist candidate is first to be eliminated it is unlikely the second choices of their supporters, if made, will make much difference.

 

Baroness Warsi is a f***ing idiot.

 

I'd actually say that the BNP are some people's second/third choices. Especially to Tories and Working Class Labour support.

 

I think the answer will be No but I hope for Yes, the cringeworthy 'No to AV' leaflet came in my post today - bleugh, right in the bin it went.

I'd actually say that the BNP are some people's second/third choices. Especially to Tories and Working Class Labour support.

 

I think the answer will be No but I hope for Yes, the cringeworthy 'No to AV' leaflet came in my post today - bleugh, right in the bin it went.

The recycling bin I hope

Just been watching a couple of no2av videos on youtube (including alan b'stard which actually seems to do no more than lampoon the very party who most strongly oppose it - the tories) and i have noticed that comments are disabled on the no videos in general and allowed on the yes ones. Coincidence? I doubt it.

As disingenous as the 'No' ads were, I think the 'Yes' ad is bloody awful. I hate the holier-than-thou attitude from some in the 'Yes' camp, and the painting of anyone who disagrees with them as stupid and/or corrupt.

 

Anyway, I'm hoping 'Yes' wins on by the tiniest of margins on a tiny turnout, just to see the $h!tstorm from Tory MPs :dance:

Gideon Osborne has joined in with his contribution to the lies and distortion. He is attacking the role of the Electoral Reform Society as one of the major donors to the Yes campaign. First he has tried to claim that there is a conflict of interest because the commercial arm of the Society is printing ballot papers for the referendum (along with five other companies). How is that a conflict of interest?

 

He has also pointed to the fact that the commercial arm sell counting machines. However, as I have already said, there are no plans to use machines for counting. Once again, the No campaign are just throwing out various smears without actually discussing the merits and demerits of the alternatives on offer.

I'd actually say that the BNP are some people's second/third choices. Especially to Tories and Working Class Labour support.

 

I think the answer will be No but I hope for Yes, the cringeworthy 'No to AV' leaflet came in my post today - bleugh, right in the bin it went.

I don't think the BNP will be many people's second choice. Even if some Tories put them as their second choice it would almost certainly be irrelevant as the BNP will probably have been eliminated by the time those second preferences were counted.

I knew the No Campaign were using dirty tricks, but seeing their leaflet in its full, awful glorification of logic failures and misinformation has made me more angry than I've been in ages.

 

What upsets me is that I can see some of my little old lady neighbours glancing through it, and being horrified without giving it any actual thought. And they'll be the ones voting in high numbers.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/featu...the-losers.html

 

I'm pretty certain that this article makes no sense at all? Even considering that it's the Sun, I must be missing something here - their athletics analogy seems to involve arbitarily subtracting times off certain competitors from random information such as the reaction times of their opponents, whilst making it unneccessarily complicated in the process.. I fail to see how this is an example of AV.

I knew the No Campaign were using dirty tricks, but seeing their leaflet in its full, awful glorification of logic failures and misinformation has made me more angry than I've been in ages.

 

What upsets me is that I can see some of my little old lady neighbours glancing through it, and being horrified without giving it any actual thought. And they'll be the ones voting in high numbers.

Which, of course, is exactly why they are doing it. It's nearly always easier to come up with the sort of fallacious arguments that the No campaigners have concocted than it is to counter them.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/featu...the-losers.html

 

I'm pretty certain that this article makes no sense at all? Even considering that it's the Sun, I must be missing something here - their athletics analogy seems to involve arbitarily subtracting times off certain competitors from random information such as the reaction times of their opponents, whilst making it unneccessarily complicated in the process.. I fail to see how this is an example of AV.

I refuse to add to the number of visitors to the Sun's website. Perhaps you could summarise their "argument".

Fair enough, I'll just paste the article :P

 

PRIME Minister David Cameron compared the Alternative Vote system to Usain Bolt winning the 2012 Olympic 100m final and being given the bronze medal while the second-placed athlete gets gold.

 

"Sounds ridiculous," he said.

 

"Giving the top prize to someone who didn't win? But that's exactly what could happen in our democracy if the country chooses the Alternative Vote system in the referendum on May 5."

 

This week the Tories unveiled a new campaign poster, with a knocked-out boxer being named the fight winner, to drive home the point that the politician who gets the most first preference votes would not necessarily win under AV.

 

Here MARTIN PHILLIPS imagines how AV could have ended Usain Bolt's Olympic dream in Beijing - and helped losing Brit Lewis Hamilton clinch last year's Formula One world championship.

 

It gets complicated - but then so do AV elections - so try to keep up.

Olympic 100m final

 

WHO could forget Usain Bolt smashing the world record in the 100m final in Beijing?

 

Alternative Vote supporters could.

 

Under AV, eighth-placed Darvis Patton of the US, who ran 10.03 seconds, would have been eliminated.

 

So let's give his start reaction time of 0.142 seconds to his fellow American Walter Dix, who finished third in 9.91 seconds. That would reduce Dix's time to 9.768, (9.91 less 0.142) moving him up to take Richard Thompson's silver medal position, while seventh-placed Marc Burns from Trinidad & Tobago would be eliminated.

 

Give Burns' reaction time of 0.145 seconds to countryman Thompson, who ran 9.89, and Thompson moves back into second place with a new time of 9.745.

 

Sixth-placed Michael Frater is next to be eliminated. If his reaction time of 0.147 seconds is allocated to fellow Jamaican Asafa Powell, who ran 9.95, then Powell moves up to fourth with a new time of 9.803 seconds. That leaves original fourth-placed finisher Churandy Martina, of the Netherlands Antilles, in fifth place and eliminated.

 

If he too gives his reaction time of 0.169 seconds to Powell, Asafa then leapfrogs fellow Jamaican Bolt into the gold medal position in a new time of 9.634 seconds.

 

American Dix, who under First Past The Post would have claimed bronze, is eliminated.

 

If he gives his reaction time of 0.133 seconds to Thompson, we have a new final podium.

 

Thompson - originally second - claims gold with an adjusted time of 9.612 seconds. Powell gets silver in 9.634 and our former champion Bolt has to make do with the bronze with his unadjusted time of 9.69 seconds.

That's a whole lot of logic fail, missing the point and general fail mixed into one generally retarded package.

 

What kind of degree do you need to work at the Sun? Clearly people with Journalism degrees are not encouraged to apply, nor are those people who got above a grade 7 at Standard Grade English and Maths.