webofevil | (no subject)

Entry tags:

murdochracy

(no subject)

Compare and contrast: “Brits oppose £80m voting referendum” and “69% support holding a referendum”. The Sun kindly allows both interpretations on the same page. Presumably this is to allow the reader to make up their own mind rather than being a Foxnewsian exercise in blatantly lying in the face of the evidence that you yourself are presenting. Presumably.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

also, leading question much? at least they say what the leading question is, which is a small step forward i suppose...

So basically Sun readers want a vote, but only if it doesn't cost anything to have one. *sigh*

Also, I think the £80m is the cost for holding a referendum on its own, not the marginal cost of holding a referendum at the same time as local & regional elections.

I'm more interested in the fact that it's a referendum on AV, which no one except Gordon Brown actually wants (and even he didn't want it that strongly)...

I thought it was the Lib Dems who wanted it the most? After all, they're the ones who would have the most to gain (to the point where they'd be crazy NOT to want it).

The Lib Dems hold that AV is better than FPTP, but they actually *want* a proportional system - they favour Single Transferable Vote in multi-membered consituencies. AV was a bit of a compromise with the Conservatives, who (along with Labour) are over-represented and would lose out massively under any more proportional system.

Oh my mistake. I didn't know what AV was and thought it just meant electoral reform as opposed to being an alternative to proportional representation.

STV in multi-membered constituencies is both proportional and preferential; AV is preferential but not proportional. Since FPTP is neither, AV is an improvement (it gets rid of tactical voting, mainly).

Did they ask people how important they felt it was for any question put to a referendum to be clearly phrased? Or not?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only