Grab and change it, it's yours

[venta]

Does anyone know what the actual text which is actually going to appear on the actual ballot papers on May 5th is? A bit of googling hasn't turned up any results for me, but the pages I was finding suggest to me that I may have been going about my searching in the wrong way.

I'm kind of assuming that the ballot paper will look broadly like this:

[Poll #1729575]

Now, lots of campaigners would have you believe that this is analogous to:

[Poll #1729576]

And lots of other campaigners would have you believe it's analogous to:

[Poll #1729577]

You'll notice that the second two polls allow the results to be interpreted as pol(l)ar opposites.

So, does anyone know exactly what the question is? More to the point, has the government made any commitment at all about what they're going to do with the results, how they'll be interpreted, or whether Cameron will (in fact) go "oh, that's nice" and carry on regardless with the existing system?

Comments

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I agree that that Lib Dem page has a couple of woolly claims. Although that's still not what I mean by scaremongering and lies - I don't mind if No2AV say that FPTP is discredited - or as they do, undemocratic. Saying that Australia etc are undemocratic is bizarre too, but that's not the thing I have a problem with, as it's simply an opinion being expressed.

I mean things like the two-faced-ness of it: it's not that Cameron calls it undemocratic and unfair, but that he does so when a form of AV made him Tory leader and hence Prime Minister. Similarly, this also makes me suspicious of their "second bite of the cherry" talk. Even though I think that's nonsense (see my other comments here), I could at least accept it as someone's viewpoint on the issue, if they thought that 1st preferences are all that should count. But the Tory party evidently don't think that, which makes it come across as using the argument to scaremonger. Similarly again with the "It means the loser wins" claims, when presumably Cameron doesn't think of himself as a loser.

That no one wants AV - by all means tell us what they want, but there's something frustrating in claiming that the Yes supporters don't want it.

Indeed, the whole stitch up where the Tories are the ones to offer only AV, and then use Clegg's "miserable little compromise" quote out of context (which he said about AV compared with their preferred STV) in their campaign to imply he doesn't want AV over FPTP. Other people are quoted too, including the Electoral Reform Society - the implication being they've changed their mind, when actually they always liked FPTP even less.

The stooping to levels of "Vote No or the baby gets it", and linking the debate to the cuts - especially when the Tories are the ones making the cuts.

The lies about needing voting machines.

The lies about the cost - the figure almost entirely made up of the unnecessary voting machines, and the referendum.

The scaremongering about the BNP, even though there's no evidence AV will help them, and they are campaigning against it. (It's true that the Yes campaign are now referring to the BNP - though firstly that's based on the truth, since the BNP are against it; and secondly, it's fair game to respond to No2AV's claims about them in my opinion.)

Lies that some people (like BNP voters) have their votes counted again and again, whilst others don't. (Saying that it's unfair that people's lower preferences are counted is one thing, but claims about some people having more votes that others is just plain wrong.)

The claims that it'll mean an eternal coalition with the Lib Dems in power.

Trying to make it all about Nick Clegg, instead of a discussion about voting systems.

That only Nick Clegg's vote would count in AV.

The bizarre claim that AV leads to broken promises, based on grinding an axe against the Lib Dems (even though this happened under FPTP...)

Yes, I've no doubt you can go away and find a webpage somewhere which has a couple of inaccurate claims, or refers to FPTP with an unkind description. There are indeed areas where I would criticise the claims made by Yes to Fairer Votes, and areas where I wish they would focus on instead. But I'm still not convinced this is on the same scale as the examples I give above. And these aren't found on some website - they're on the forefront of the campaign: TV adverts, multiple leaflets through my door etc. The Yes letter through my door had some woolly stuff about making MPs work harder, but none of the same kind of thing as I've described.

Maybe I'm biased because I have a point of view - but then, maybe you are too :) This is why I did state my view was "in my opinion".

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I've no doubt you can go away and find a webpage somewhere which has a couple of inaccurate claims, or refers to FPTP with an unkind description.

Sort of moves the goalposts, don'tcha think? First I respond to the specific page provided above, which you decide is unfair because "it's not official." Not that you tell me what you would consider an "official" site. So I picked the site the Lib Dems put up, which I would think is close. So now it's "can go away and find a webpage." Pray tell: what actual source can I point to that you will agree is both "official" and a yardstick against which the Pro-AV forces can be judged? One notes that you haven't provided anything like this in your examples: you have paraphrased the arguments of others (without citing sources), and it's impossible for me to tell if you've done so uncharitably or not.

This tendency to hold others to standards that one would not for a moment think of applying to one's allies or oneself is the attitude that I find galling in many of the official (and unofficial) supporters of the Yes campaign. Disagreement of opinion I find enjoyable. Sanctimony is not.

Maybe I'm biased because I have a point of view - but then, maybe you are too :)

Perhaps. Then again, I'm not particularly partisan for FPTP. When I was a TA, I had to teach an entire unit on voting theory. I'm fond of Arrow's theorum that roughly states that there is no perfect voting system: it's a matter of trade offs. I'm marginally more partial to FPTP, but I recognize that it has its weaknesses.

That said: any theory of political malfeasance that says (a) it's a horrible travesty to link AV to potentially higher spending, cuts in services, etc. (which I agree are not necessary outcomes of AV, although each falls in the "possible but unlikely" category) but (b) it is not equally morally bankrupt to link the adoption of AV to the relatively strong economic Australian performance after the financial crisis, or to state that the most populous democracy in the world is using a "discredited" system to chose its members is one that, if it is following a system of consistent principals at all, follows one that I cannot divine.