Skip to main content

#AV : Ask your MP if they are backing #Yes2AV (and if not, why not!)

As MPs who #No2AV claimed were supporters continue publicly to declare for the Yes campaign,
the Yes campaign are encouraging supporters to write to their MPs to ask where they stand: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/where-does-your-mp-stand-on-the-alternative-vote/
Given that No2AV certainly cannot be relied to give out any reliable facts on this matter - see http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/01/no-to-av-meltdown.html - this looks like the best way forward.

Comments

Amanda said…
As Av is more disproportionate than FPTP getting a deviation of 23.5% from proportionality as opposed to 21% respectively I, as a Green Party member, will be helping the No Campaign. Just look at the 1996 Australian results for the House of Representatives for confirmation. If AV is accepted then the major beneficiary will be Labour and those losing most out will be the LD's and minor parties meaning than no other political pressure will build for change any time soon after it. AV(+) was a good idea but AV is possibly worse. It's a pity this has come about, as the results are clear from the Jenkins and no one, as usual pays any attention to it.
11 January 2011 at 10:36
Amanda said…
LibDems will benefit. Don't know why I said they wouldn't. lol The thing is what is likelihood of further change if it is rejected or accepted?
12 January 2011 at 11:19
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more