I fully expect Jezza/RLB to call for electronic voter tweet hubs in Lidl within 48hrs..
It’s far too myopic to say that low tech/no tech solutions are anachronistic and high tech ones must be better/more efficient.
Democracy has to be seen to be believed. At its core that depends upon a secret physical vote being cast against a registered voter. It’s not all about speed. The ballot boxes and votes need to be seen being counted and tallied by all sides, so they are accepted. There also needs to be an audit trail of where the votes came (not who cast them) from that’s reviewable.
Our system works because it’s physical and transparent. We’re also pretty darn efficient at counting them too.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
Whether you think that the other factors outweigh this is of course a matter of opinion.
What serious problems?
I could have predicted this response. You know full well.
Peterborough ?
Votes should be cast on the day in the booth - unless you are dead.
That would utterly screw the Tory party as the largest user of postal votes are (elderly) Tories.
Postal voters are the true snowflakes. Demanding their voice be heard but not willing to walk down to the end of the street for the most important decision they can make.
I fully expect Jezza/RLB to call for electronic voter tweet hubs in Lidl within 48hrs..
It’s far too myopic to say that low tech/no tech solutions are anachronistic and high tech ones must be better/more efficient.
Democracy has to be seen to be believed. At its core that depends upon a secret physical vote being cast against a registered voter. It’s not all about speed. The ballot boxes and votes need to be seen being counted and tallied by all sides, so they are accepted. There also needs to be an audit trail of where the votes came (not who cast them) from that’s reviewable.
Our system works because it’s physical and transparent. We’re also pretty darn efficient at counting them too.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
Whether you think that the other factors outweigh this is of course a matter of opinion.
What serious problems?
I could have predicted this response. You know full well.
The advantage of our electoral system is that the risks of pursuing electoral fraud and remaining undetected almost always outweigh the potential benefits. And in the rare circumstances where it could theoretically change a Government, that Government would likely be too weak to do anything. Because, unlike Presidential FPTP our system doesn’t give near absolute power to very narrow winners.
Not quite enough to knock out any of the top five.
“Represent the results from nearly 40%....” - ie this statement is entirely self serving, and unlikely to represent an accurate result.
What it does strongly suggest is that Buttigieg did very well indeed. He's 10-1 on Betfair for the nomination - I suspect that will shorten when the official results appear.
Incidentally, I no longer think that most US voters don't think of the candidates mainly in moderate vs liberal terms. Nearly everyone interviewed on CNN (before I went to bed at 1) was doing exactly that, and voting accordingly.
Mayor Pete put a lot into Iowa. Possibly his gamble worked. I like Amy too, but of the moderate faction Pete looks a far better candidate than Biden.
Up to a point. With the current regime we already lock up more for longer than any other Western European country. Do we really want to double this?
For serious and unreformed offenders? Yes, for life if need be.
Who’s going to pay for it?
It would be far cheaper to fund serious rehabilitation efforts. At the moment, we are effectively allowing prisons to be centres of radicalisation, which turn our individuals far more extreme than when they went in.
(Something which is in the process of happening on a much larger scale in the ISIS detention camp in northern Syria.)
Not quite enough to knock out any of the top five.
“Represent the results from nearly 40%....” - ie this statement is entirely self serving, and unlikely to represent an accurate result.
What it does strongly suggest is that Buttigieg did very well indeed. He's 10-1 on Betfair for the nomination - I suspect that will shorten when the official results appear.
Incidentally, I no longer think that most US voters don't think of the candidates mainly in moderate vs liberal terms. Nearly everyone interviewed on CNN (before I went to bed at 1) was doing exactly that, and voting accordingly.
Mayor Pete put a lot into Iowa. Possibly his gamble worked. I like Amy too, but of the moderate faction Pete looks a far better candidate than Biden.
Given his recent TV appearances, I fear how bad Biden might be later on this year if he were to win the nomination.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
When the people were asked nine years ago, they said "nah, we'll stick with FPTP".
It's not our fault that the Labour Party didn't get behind AV.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
That you believe in something different does not mean our system has "serious problems" - especially when it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority recently.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
It's the standard line - and I remember it being trotted out in the 80's.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
That you believe in something different does not mean our system has "serious problems" - especially when it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority recently.
No, an particular alternative system was rejected by an overwhelming majority. That is not the same thing at all.
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
Not quite enough to knock out any of the top five.
“Represent the results from nearly 40%....” - ie this statement is entirely self serving, and unlikely to represent an accurate result.
What it does strongly suggest is that Buttigieg did very well indeed. He's 10-1 on Betfair for the nomination - I suspect that will shorten when the official results appear.
Incidentally, I no longer think that most US voters don't think of the candidates mainly in moderate vs liberal terms. Nearly everyone interviewed on CNN (before I went to bed at 1) was doing exactly that, and voting accordingly.
Mayor Pete put a lot into Iowa. Possibly his gamble worked. I like Amy too, but of the moderate faction Pete looks a far better candidate than Biden.
Until the bandwagon goes to South Carolina....where the wheels on the clown-car will again need re-attaching.
Up to a point. With the current regime we already lock up more for longer than any other Western European country. Do we really want to double this?
For serious and unreformed offenders? Yes, for life if need be.
Who’s going to pay for it?
It would be far cheaper to fund serious rehabilitation efforts. At the moment, we are effectively allowing prisons to be centres of radicalisation, which turn our individuals far more extreme than when they went in.
(Something which is in the process of happening on a much larger scale in the ISIS detention camp in northern Syria.)
If banging up people for life worked then the USA would be a crime free nirvana. Banging up the Streatham stabbed for life for downloading stuff from the internet does sound a little draconian too.
The only senior British politician to speak sense on the subject was Douglas Hurd. An expensive way to make bad people worse.
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
That you believe in something different does not mean our system has "serious problems" - especially when it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority recently.
No, an particular alternative system was rejected by an overwhelming majority. That is not the same thing at all.
Our status quo won by an overwhelming majority. It is the same thing. If a majority thought our system was broken they could have voted for change.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
You don't just get to make that statement without being called out.
Within the past decade we had a nationwide vote on whether to change the voting system. (Admittedly, only because a party with 57 of the 650 seats - down 5 on their previous showing - insisted. Democracy, huh?)
The voters went away, thought about it - and said "Nah. You're alright. We'll stick with what we know." So that recently democratically-endorsed system is the one we use.
Excuse me, but I'm seeing fuck all unfairness there. Just a bad loser.
Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.
Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.
Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
It's the standard line - and I remember it being trotted out in the 80's.
As opposed to the three-year old's tantrum standard line of "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!"?
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
Because AV was as far as the Tories would go and Clegg really didn’t want to go into coalition with Labour.
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
No. I assumed it was because it was in the Labour Party manifesto, so there was a reasonable epectation that Labour would support it. And also because the Conservatives - who were the majority partner in the coalition - insisted on it. This woud have been because AV suited them better than proper STV. AV was, of course, described at the time as a "miserable little compromise".
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
Fitting. Clegg's life after politics, working for Facebook - " a miserable little compromise...."
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
Because AV was as far as the Tories would go and Clegg really didn’t want to go into coalition with Labour.
They didn't have to go into coalition with anyone.
Anyway, turnout in 2011 was only 42% so clearly FPTP doesn't annoy that many people (even if you considered AV to still be sub-optimal).
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
Would've helped if either AV or STV had actually been in their manifesto.
The better question is why on earth did they not insist on not increasing tuition fees.
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
Clegg was remarkably self-unaware. Most coalitions, which the LD’s professed to love until reality bit, are compromises.
That Harry Dunn story keeps rumbling on. It's quite obvious they are never going send the spook/housewife back. We didn't send them that basement dwelling incel that hacked the Pentagon so fair enough, I suppose.
I fully expect Jezza/RLB to call for electronic voter tweet hubs in Lidl within 48hrs..
It’s far too myopic to say that low tech/no tech solutions are anachronistic and high tech ones must be better/more efficient.
Democracy has to be seen to be believed. At its core that depends upon a secret physical vote being cast against a registered voter. It’s not all about speed. The ballot boxes and votes need to be seen being counted and tallied by all sides, so they are accepted. There also needs to be an audit trail of where the votes came (not who cast them) from that’s reviewable.
Our system works because it’s physical and transparent. We’re also pretty darn efficient at counting them too.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
Whether you think that the other factors outweigh this is of course a matter of opinion.
What serious problems?
I could have predicted this response. You know full well.
Peterborough ?
Votes should be cast on the day in the booth - unless you are dead.
That would utterly screw the Tory party as the largest user of postal votes are (elderly) Tories.
Evidence that responsible seniors would stay at home ?
I fully expect Jezza/RLB to call for electronic voter tweet hubs in Lidl within 48hrs..
It’s far too myopic to say that low tech/no tech solutions are anachronistic and high tech ones must be better/more efficient.
Democracy has to be seen to be believed. At its core that depends upon a secret physical vote being cast against a registered voter. It’s not all about speed. The ballot boxes and votes need to be seen being counted and tallied by all sides, so they are accepted. There also needs to be an audit trail of where the votes came (not who cast them) from that’s reviewable.
Our system works because it’s physical and transparent. We’re also pretty darn efficient at counting them too.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
Whether you think that the other factors outweigh this is of course a matter of opinion.
What serious problems?
I could have predicted this response. You know full well.
Peterborough ?
Votes should be cast on the day in the booth - unless you are dead.
That would utterly screw the Tory party as the largest user of postal votes are (elderly) Tories.
Evidence that responsible seniors would stay at home ?
That they can't be arsed getting off their arses' at the moment.
I fully expect Jezza/RLB to call for electronic voter tweet hubs in Lidl within 48hrs..
It’s far too myopic to say that low tech/no tech solutions are anachronistic and high tech ones must be better/more efficient.
Democracy has to be seen to be believed. At its core that depends upon a secret physical vote being cast against a registered voter. It’s not all about speed. The ballot boxes and votes need to be seen being counted and tallied by all sides, so they are accepted. There also needs to be an audit trail of where the votes came (not who cast them) from that’s reviewable.
Our system works because it’s physical and transparent. We’re also pretty darn efficient at counting them too.
It also has to be fair and you know full well there are serious problems with our system in this department.
Whether you think that the other factors outweigh this is of course a matter of opinion.
What serious problems?
I could have predicted this response. You know full well.
Peterborough ?
Votes should be cast on the day in the booth - unless you are dead.
That would utterly screw the Tory party as the largest user of postal votes are (elderly) Tories.
Evidence that responsible seniors would stay at home ?
Two decades of canvassing for the Tory party.
They’d most likely forget when the election was supposed to be.
Seems like that, although I guess the places where Bernie has a volunteer who's on top of things skew young and/or urban, which I think would favour Mayor Pete over the other moderates.
FWIW they claim the districts sampled are a representative sample of the state in terms of urban/rural etc. Last tkime, Sanders did much better outside the cities, presumably because (as in the UK), the non-conservatives who bother to be politically active are often more left-wing than their urban counterparts.
Due to the tiny caucus sizes there is an absurdly high chance of going to coin tosses. Clinton won something like 6 coin tosses vs Sanders in 2016.
Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
Due to the tiny caucus sizes there is an absurdly high chance of going to coin tosses. Clinton won something like 6 coin tosses vs Sanders in 2016.
Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
You would have thought America would have learned from the British experience of dallying with the hard left as the Opposition....
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
Would've helped if either AV or STV had actually been in their manifesto.
The better question is why on earth did they not insist on not increasing tuition fees.
I was amazed when you said it wasn't , so I checked. It was, please check your facts.
Due to the tiny caucus sizes there is an absurdly high chance of going to coin tosses. Clinton won something like 6 coin tosses vs Sanders in 2016.
Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
Yeah, sure. As I pointed out earlier, this shiny new system is the result of Bernie's complaints about how the process was run last time around.
Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
Would've helped if either AV or STV had actually been in their manifesto.
The better question is why on earth did they not insist on not increasing tuition fees.
I was amazed when you said it wasn't , so I checked. It was, please check your facts.
Due to the tiny caucus sizes there is an absurdly high chance of going to coin tosses. Clinton won something like 6 coin tosses vs Sanders in 2016.
Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
This is why electronic voting is a bad idea folks.
Nothing wrong with the basic idea. It's the implementation which is rubbish. Strikes me someone has been too clever by half, as the saying goes.
Good ideas which have a high chance of being badly implemented are bad ideas.
It’s why conservatism (small c) is such an enduring political force.
What is really worrying is that the Democrats, who aspire to government in one of the most significant countries of the world, have made such a mess of things.
American elections are always a bit of a farce, with states being called on a fraction of votes, California taking forever, faithless electors etc, rampant voter suppression and gerrymandering. Not to mention an impeachment trial that refuses to examine witnesses or evidence.
Mind you our own system of democracy doesn't look very healthy either, with illegal prorogation and a refusal to debate a Withdrawal Agreement that seems not to have been read or understood by the Prime Minister.
Agree. And a system which gave one party a considerable vote increase and a reduction in seats hasn't much to commend it. It'll be instructive to watch the Irish go about it. Might take them a bit longer to count than us, but at least the system will be seen to be fair and representative.
Comments
If I were Bernie I would have underplayed it
At the moment, we are effectively allowing prisons to be centres of radicalisation, which turn our individuals far more extreme than when they went in.
(Something which is in the process of happening on a much larger scale in the ISIS detention camp in northern Syria.)
For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
It's not our fault that the Labour Party didn't get behind AV.
That is not the same thing at all.
The only senior British politician to speak sense on the subject was Douglas Hurd. An expensive way to make bad people worse.
The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1224579247177596928?s=09
Amsterdam less than 6 hours away from Leicester by train, with only one change.
Anyway, turnout in 2011 was only 42% so clearly FPTP doesn't annoy that many people (even if you considered AV to still be sub-optimal).
The better question is why on earth did they not insist on not increasing tuition fees.
They’d most likely forget when the election was supposed to be.
"Introduce single transferrable vote system, cut number of MPs by 150 and introduce fixed-term parliaments"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm
NEW THREAD
As I pointed out earlier, this shiny new system is the result of Bernie's complaints about how the process was run last time around.
Also, there's probably a lot of stuff the public don't find out.