![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI find it difficult to get worked up about politics these days. Back in the old days it was rare a day went by without the last government doing something like repealing the Magna Carta, my blood pressure spiking, and steam coming out of my ears making a noise like a train whistle, but these days I just can't bring myself to get worked up about the coalition. I've found it difficult to express why that is, but over the weekend I was watching Countryfile with a report about raw sewage being dumped into the sea, and a campaign group called "Surfers against sewage" who are complaining against it.
"So if the outflow pipes stop flowing does that mean the seawater becomes clean?" asked the presenter of a man in a wetsuit.
"No", was the reply. "The water is still filthy but at least there's no turds in it".
And that's kinda how I feel about politics at the moment.
Anyway, one of the things that a small but vocal minority of the political world has been getting all worked up about is one of the agreements in the coalition arrangement: specifically, a public referendum on a change to the voting system and the introduction of AV (Alternative voting).
Now you might think this would be something I'd get interested in. Despite my malaise as regards the current government, I'm still a political creature and the methods of selection of government - and the mandate from which they derive their authority - is a matter of considerable interest to me. However, the AV referendum has moved me not one bit. But why not?
In part it's due to the campagns being run. The Yes campaign does not seem to really have had any idea what it has been campaigning for and as a result it's been all over the place. On the one hand, I've been reassured that the change to AV is a small, incremental change that I needn't worry about. On the other hand, I've been told it's an important landmark of political change in the UK. I don't think it can be both of those things. The Yes campaign has also banged on about how the system guarantees 'fairer' votes, and as far as I'm concerned anyone using the word 'fair' in political debate deserves to be punched, good and hard, in the face. 'Fair' is one of the most debased words in modern politics, and from what I can make out literally translates as "I won't be any worse off, but someone I don't like will be". Telling me your system will make things 'fair' is a fast shorthand for telling me you aren't capable of making a coherent argument so you're going to use emotional blackmail instead. Don't do it.
On the other hand the No campaign has focussed on the fact that AV doesn't work very well and would be expensive, but if not spending lots of money on stuff which doesn't work very well was actually important then government policy on pretty much everything would be wildly different, so that's a non-argument.
What both campaigns have studiously avoided is the question of what voting and elections are for, and where power derives from. The power of the executive derives from the consent of the governed, and there's little evidence that since the introduction of universal suffrage this has not been the case in the UK, and no evidence at all that the majority are not content with this arrangement; in 2005 a government was formed with 35% of the vote and the electorate consented to this. The other constitutional argument for voting is that the purpose of elections is to provide stable government for a set period, and, once again, there's little evidence to suggest that FPTP does not do this. As such: a system of stable government which derives from the consent of the governed. The No campaign would have done well to point this out. The Yes campaign needed to work harder to demonstrate why it would achieve those things better than FPTP, which it hasn't.
I think one of the biggest problems the Yes campaign has had is that it has been largely a debate with it's own supporters. Many of the adverts and slogans I've seen from the Yes campaign have been either ill-spirited jibes at those who disagree with them or derived from an assumption of moral superiority over those who disagree (or are simply undecided). Neither of those things engage me. In fact, the Yes campaign has done more to alienate me than the No campaign has done to convince me. Both the yes and no campaigns have spent disproportionate amounts of time questioning the sources of each others funding without acknowledging the failings in their own (one largely finded by people who'll make large profits from the change, the other largely funded by people with a financial interest in the status quo) and I've found the hypocrisy on both sides offputting.
The problem is that coming out of the end of all of the incessant whining about the referendum I find that I couldn't give two beans about it. As a change it's incremental, probably meaningless and - perhaps most importantly - I'll make anyone a cash bet of up to a hundred quid here and now and that the result is going to be No anyway.
On the other hand, despite me not caring which way the vote goes, I do have a moral responsibility to vote which puts puts me in a quandry of what to do? After all, what did George Formby punch Hitler for if not to ensure I got to vote?
Anyway, after a lengthy chat with the she-David, we've come to what seems to us to be a good way to accomodate our moral responsibility to vote whilst simultaneously indicating that we neither of us care much either way about the outcome. One of us is going to vote yes and the other no, thereby cancelling each other out.
Works for me - and Yes fans? You've had a year to convince me. You've failed. I'm probably one of the most politically engaged people you know, and I. Don't. Care. Next time, try running a positive campaign rather than one which assumes you started out holding the moral high ground and you might do better.
"So if the outflow pipes stop flowing does that mean the seawater becomes clean?" asked the presenter of a man in a wetsuit.
"No", was the reply. "The water is still filthy but at least there's no turds in it".
And that's kinda how I feel about politics at the moment.
Anyway, one of the things that a small but vocal minority of the political world has been getting all worked up about is one of the agreements in the coalition arrangement: specifically, a public referendum on a change to the voting system and the introduction of AV (Alternative voting).
Now you might think this would be something I'd get interested in. Despite my malaise as regards the current government, I'm still a political creature and the methods of selection of government - and the mandate from which they derive their authority - is a matter of considerable interest to me. However, the AV referendum has moved me not one bit. But why not?
In part it's due to the campagns being run. The Yes campaign does not seem to really have had any idea what it has been campaigning for and as a result it's been all over the place. On the one hand, I've been reassured that the change to AV is a small, incremental change that I needn't worry about. On the other hand, I've been told it's an important landmark of political change in the UK. I don't think it can be both of those things. The Yes campaign has also banged on about how the system guarantees 'fairer' votes, and as far as I'm concerned anyone using the word 'fair' in political debate deserves to be punched, good and hard, in the face. 'Fair' is one of the most debased words in modern politics, and from what I can make out literally translates as "I won't be any worse off, but someone I don't like will be". Telling me your system will make things 'fair' is a fast shorthand for telling me you aren't capable of making a coherent argument so you're going to use emotional blackmail instead. Don't do it.
On the other hand the No campaign has focussed on the fact that AV doesn't work very well and would be expensive, but if not spending lots of money on stuff which doesn't work very well was actually important then government policy on pretty much everything would be wildly different, so that's a non-argument.
What both campaigns have studiously avoided is the question of what voting and elections are for, and where power derives from. The power of the executive derives from the consent of the governed, and there's little evidence that since the introduction of universal suffrage this has not been the case in the UK, and no evidence at all that the majority are not content with this arrangement; in 2005 a government was formed with 35% of the vote and the electorate consented to this. The other constitutional argument for voting is that the purpose of elections is to provide stable government for a set period, and, once again, there's little evidence to suggest that FPTP does not do this. As such: a system of stable government which derives from the consent of the governed. The No campaign would have done well to point this out. The Yes campaign needed to work harder to demonstrate why it would achieve those things better than FPTP, which it hasn't.
I think one of the biggest problems the Yes campaign has had is that it has been largely a debate with it's own supporters. Many of the adverts and slogans I've seen from the Yes campaign have been either ill-spirited jibes at those who disagree with them or derived from an assumption of moral superiority over those who disagree (or are simply undecided). Neither of those things engage me. In fact, the Yes campaign has done more to alienate me than the No campaign has done to convince me. Both the yes and no campaigns have spent disproportionate amounts of time questioning the sources of each others funding without acknowledging the failings in their own (one largely finded by people who'll make large profits from the change, the other largely funded by people with a financial interest in the status quo) and I've found the hypocrisy on both sides offputting.
The problem is that coming out of the end of all of the incessant whining about the referendum I find that I couldn't give two beans about it. As a change it's incremental, probably meaningless and - perhaps most importantly - I'll make anyone a cash bet of up to a hundred quid here and now and that the result is going to be No anyway.
On the other hand, despite me not caring which way the vote goes, I do have a moral responsibility to vote which puts puts me in a quandry of what to do? After all, what did George Formby punch Hitler for if not to ensure I got to vote?
Anyway, after a lengthy chat with the she-David, we've come to what seems to us to be a good way to accomodate our moral responsibility to vote whilst simultaneously indicating that we neither of us care much either way about the outcome. One of us is going to vote yes and the other no, thereby cancelling each other out.
Works for me - and Yes fans? You've had a year to convince me. You've failed. I'm probably one of the most politically engaged people you know, and I. Don't. Care. Next time, try running a positive campaign rather than one which assumes you started out holding the moral high ground and you might do better.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Weird forum for expression this...
Date: 2011-05-03 10:10 am (UTC)Can't remember who said it, but "If you have no strong feelings towards the job your leaders are doing in any way, then they are probably doing an adequate job."
yeah, it's like facebook never happened, innit?
Date: 2011-05-03 10:15 am (UTC)One thing which has really caused me to take against the Yes campaign is that a lot of the pro-yes people are the same people who back in '05-'06 were telling me that we weren't going to have that economic crash I was predicting. Have to question that judgement there, guys.
What's facebook?
Date: 2011-05-03 10:20 am (UTC)this may amuse you:
http://prodicus.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-aye-man.html
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 10:23 am (UTC)Would you prefer a government that the most people asked for or the least people objected to?
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 10:31 am (UTC)"Our way is better!"
"No, our way is"
"Well you're funded by teh ev1lxxor toriezz"
"Well you're funded by people who sell AV voting machines!"
"That's better than you"
"No, we're better than you."
"Our way is fair."
"No, ours is"
"Ner."
"Ner."
From an external perspective, it's been downright ****ing pathetic.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 10:55 am (UTC)What this has taught me if nothing else is that there needs to be some kind of authority that can deal with any claims that are made in advertising campaigns of this nature, the adverts (from both sides) have no means of quality control; the ASA has no authority as it's "outside their remit" and the Electoral Commission refuses to get involved either, which means either side can claim whatever they want and produce outlandish adverts and claim that FPTP increases your sexual prowess while AV can cure all known cancers or whatever they want without fear of censorship or reprisal, hence the farce we've been witness to.
I think
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 10:58 am (UTC)That's about the point the matchsticks holding my eyelids open broke and I gave up on the whole thing.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:07 am (UTC)I do agree that the appeals to emotion are rather senseless, but I put that down to the lack of control in advertising and trying to galvanise a generally apathetic voter lot who don't appreciate what a vote means in the first place, let alone how it is cast; I'm with you on getting in the Aussie system there.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:09 am (UTC)However, if we're changing the electoral system then yes, compulsory voting would be a far better start than AV.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:26 am (UTC)H
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:30 am (UTC)I'm not sure what this indicates beyond tribalism.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 11:59 am (UTC)Re: What's facebook?
Date: 2011-05-03 12:54 pm (UTC)That's a first.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 01:03 pm (UTC)H
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 01:07 pm (UTC)*laughs*
Date: 2011-05-03 01:22 pm (UTC)Re: *laughs*
Date: 2011-05-03 01:24 pm (UTC)Bless him: he thinks he can dish it out, but he's physically incapable of taking it.
Re: *laughs*
Date: 2011-05-03 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 02:07 pm (UTC)H
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 06:18 pm (UTC)I'm not holding out much hope that it'll happen though...
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 06:40 pm (UTC)I don't think that AV's great but the fact that a candidate cannot win without the support of at least half their constituents is the main reasson I'm voting for it.
This also illustrates my main problem with the current system. I don't really want to vote for AV but it is the only way to vote against FPTP.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-03 10:39 pm (UTC)Personally, my one reform would be the addition of a "None of the Above" option at the bottom of the ballot paper.
Re: AV voting machines?
Date: 2011-05-04 12:14 am (UTC)Re: AV voting machines?
Date: 2011-05-04 08:44 am (UTC)Re: AV voting machines?
Date: 2011-05-04 09:38 am (UTC)Re: AV voting machines?
Date: 2011-05-04 09:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 10:44 am (UTC)The entire mess has just degraded into a swamp of treacle; nobody is going to come out of it without looking covered in doo-doo and tarnishing everything they touch. If it comes back No, as I'm starting to suspect it will, I'll be completely disenfranchised with politics until the LibDems walk from the Coalition; if they don't then they are utterly useless wimps. Chris Hughne took a level in badass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass) during this campaign and I'd like to see him have another shot at a leadersship bid, or just split the Liberals from the Democrats.
PS: To hell with Labour, Reid is the best reminder anyone could have of the broken reform promise from '97.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 11:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 10:35 pm (UTC)But as it is I don't support the tory party or the labour party so there isn't really any point in me going along to the polling station is there?
no subject
Date: 2011-05-05 02:13 pm (UTC)But more importantly, as a candidate, it's my job to motivate people and give them something worth voting for--if people don't care enough to get you elected, that's your fault. If people feel so disengaged they don't feel it makes a difference, that's all our faults.
Combine that with the massive correlation between safe seats and low turnout (both in council and parliamentary elections), and I'd rather deal with other issues.
Plus, I've seen donkey voting in a few places, and if you make people vote some of them will just vote for the top on the ballot, or randomly.
Re: AV voting machines?
Date: 2011-05-05 02:17 pm (UTC)ERC were created by the Electoral Reform Society in order to raise money to campaign for electoral reform. A company owned by a membership organisation setup to campaign for electoral reform donates its profits to electoral reform campaigning.
It's basically like being surprised a Catholic diocese gives money to anti-abortion campaigns or similar, it's what they do.
There is no need for counting machines, I can, and have, hand counted AV ballos easily, the Electoral Commission has categorically stated this to be untrue. Besides which, they use FPTP in the US, and a lot of States there use counting machines.