No to AV,
Yes to AV,
Yes to Fairer Votes,
What a load of cobwash; we're talking about a change in an electoral system, not the right of half the population to actually vote.The word slanderous springs to mind.
Way to miss the point anonymous. In any case, we are talking about reforming a voting system that means currently, while we all get to vote, less than 2% of us are lucky enough to have a vote that means anything.I'd argue that changing to a voting system that make the other 98% real instead of lip service votesis as important or more so than woman's suffrage.
I support AV but think this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen concerning May 5th.Sadly it's another example of a Lib Dem having no sense of perspective.
@Gregg, it is possible that it is you who has no perspective.Whether or not women's suffrage is of comparable magnitude to proportional representation is irrelevant. This is a joke which uses an extreme form of the rhetoric of the No2AV campaign to satirise the attempt being made to derail AV on spurious cost grounds.There's nothing either unusual or ridiculous in that.
Wait, what? Women can vote now? This is an outrage!
Wow, maybe if we didn't participate in illegal wars at great expense we might not have a bad a deficit as we do.
AV means more women candidates and more people voting for women candidates - so there IS a link with the Votes for Women issue
The point, Anonymous, is that "...but soldiers need bullet-proof vests" is not an argument against changing the voting system.It makes no sense as an argument against votes for women, and it makes no sense either as an argument against AV.
How many bullet proof vests does he need exactly?
Fascinating - the No2AV campaign is registered by Charlotte Vere:Domain ID:D159148452-LRORDomain Name:NO2AV.ORGCreated On:11-May-2010 19:31:38 UTCLast Updated On:05-Jan-2011 18:04:15 UTCExpiration Date:11-May-2013 19:31:38 UTCSponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITEDRegistrant ID:4250877490e18083Registrant Name:Charlotte VereRegistrant Organization:No Campaign LimitedRegistrant Street1:Westminster TowerRegistrant Street2:3 Albert EmbankmentRegistrant Street3:Registrant City:LondonRegistrant State/Province:Registrant Postal Code:SE1 7SPRegistrant Country:GBRegistrant Phone:+44.44799057445Registrant Phone Ext.:Registrant FAX:Registrant FAX Ext.:Registrant Email:firstname.lastname@example.orgShe was the Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas' constituency. Presumably she reckons that with AV she stands no chance of getting in next time, but with FPTP she might get in. No self-interest there then :-) Anyway, none of this really matters - all governments are run by corporations. Hmm, one way of finding out if AV is a threat to the elites is to see where the corporate money is going. Time for a bit more research...
This is another example of the blatant trivialisation of the AV campaign by both sides, which is putting people off.A message to both sides:Have something credible and informative to say, or shut up!#meh2av
Current system : Most popular candidate gets elected.Proposed system : Most popular candidate gets elected if a majority don't hate them.Isn't it that simple ?
The No2AV campaign really is shameless. Trying to link AV to these incredibly emotive topics... I would laugh if it didn't make me feel a little sick.
Fair play to Mr Elliott of the Taxpayers Alliance. His gut instinct must be to have a picture of the CEO of RBS lighting a cigar with a £50 note with the caption 'What he needs is top rate tax back to 40%, not AV.'. But instead he's put aside his own feelings and suggested that we need maternity units on every street corner, and more home helps and coppers. Bravo, sir! I just hope the TPA don't find out.
Post a Comment