Auf Wiedersehen Pet makes the case against electoral change #No2AV

Noone might vote for yellow but the Auf Wiedersehen Pet stars discover that under complicated voting systems you can end up with something that nobody really wanted. I'm grateful to Andrew Bingham MP for the tip-off.

 

> The real No2AV broadcast.

Comments

[Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)]

"..discover that under complicated voting systems you can end up with something that nobody really wanted"

Are you referring to the 2005 tory leadership election, or the Mayoral election, European elections, or..or.. you get the point.

Sheesh! [rolls eyes] :-)

[Veteran]

The no2av camp seem to be spending an enormous amount of money on their campaign. Makes one wonder what they are worried about. And were their funders ever disclosed?

[Denis Cooper]

Yes, NO2AV have disclosed at least some of their donors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/09/av-tories-no-campaign

"AV: Tories come out in support of no campaign to the tune of £1.8m"

[Herbie]

This says it all about AV - and it takes 4 pages in the Electoral Commission booklet to try to explain it (against only one page for FPTP).

We even had somebody to dinner on Saturday who thought AV was the same as PR!!!!!

AV is a system that political anoraks might understand - but would leave the average voter bewildered as to how the result was reached. The sooner it is consigned to history the better.

[Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)]

"AV is a system that political anoraks might understand - but would leave the average voter bewildered as to how the result was reached."

Brits too thick to understand something that Aussies have had no problem with for decades?

The No2AV crowd really don't seem to like Britain. With Cameron touring the world putting Britain down, they have the perfect poster boy.

Cameron seems to know as much about AV as he does about Oxford's admissions policy...

[Denis Cooper]

In fact this says nothing at all about AV, except that it might have been a better system to use for this purpose.

Under AV yellow, nobody's first preference, would have been eliminated at the end of the first counting round.

[Herbie]

If it is so simple why doe it take 4 times as many words to explain it as it does FPTP.

Australians are forced to vote whether they like it or not - and whether or not they understand understand how the system works. Are you therefore also advocating that we introduce compulsory voting here also and then kid yourself that because everyone has voted they all automatically understand the system. Or perhaps we should adopt the methods used in Fiji or Papua New Guinea. Please get real.

As for the NO supporters not liking Britain - that is an outrageous slur that does you no credit at all. Just because we do not agree with you does not mean that we feel any less proud of our country. To put it another way, do only those who support AV have a pride in their country. I suggest you retract that comment.

[Mark Wallace]

A good clip that shows the fundamental unfairness of preferential systems. And whilst it's good that Andrew Bingham is flagging it's fair to say he might just have seen it at Crash Bang Wallace first: www.crashbangwallace.com/2011/01/24/no-to-a-wiedersehen-pet/

By the way, when "Veteran" says No2AV seem to be spending a lot of money - nowhere near as much as the Yes campaign, who got a cool £2.5 million from the Electoral Reform Society (who themselves stand to profit from a Yes vote)...

[Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street!]

The desperation of the NO2AV lobby seems to know no bounds. Apart from Comedy programmes and actors the have had athletes who will be dropped from 1st to 3rd and Grand National winners disqualified as comparison to voting under AV. What next? Perhaps a quotation for the Holy Bible, one of Shakespeare's plays or maybe the Latin Tridentine Mass to prove that AV will be "unfair" compared to FPTP? If I hadn't already made up my mind to vote YES2AV the antics of the no camp would make me do so!

[Denis Cooper]

Mark Wallace, exactly how does the Electoral Reform Society "stand to profit from a Yes vote"?

[dorsetdumpling]

The desperation talked about on this thread is that displayed by those who will not accept the overriding reality of this clip. The guys, voting in a "democratic" way, achieved a result that no one wanted. Martin Marprelate is desperate in my view. Unable, or unwilling to see the reality presented in this clip, he wanders off into unrelated spheres to then say he's already made up his mind to vote YES2AV. Well done, Martin, stay true to your position but please don't attempt to say the clip shows desperation. It makes a clear (and very humorous) point.

[Denis Cooper]

Herbie, it goes without saying that AV is more complex than FPTP, and as most people in this country are not yet familiar with it the Electoral Commission has taken great care to explain it, as is their duty. But are you really saying that having read the Commission's booklet ordinary people would still not understand AV to the required level?

[robert]

People understand that if AV is approved then Usain Bolt wins the race but the gold medal is given to somebody else.
With FPTP one man/woman, one vote, one winner.
Say NOtoAV.

[Mark M]

Denis Cooper's got it bang on, what is on show there is not AV. And even if it was, you'd have to ask why the three who put yellow chose it if they didn't want it.

You can't say "if I can't have X then I'll have Y", then be upset when offered Y because X isn't available.

[Denis Cooper]

dorsetdumpling, the clip would be both amusing and relevant if they'd actually used something like the proposed AV system to make the decision, instead of some other system which may not even have a name. But as they didn't use AV in any of its variants, it's totally irrelevant to the debate on whether we should change from FPTP to AV. If the system they used had been the alternative to FPTP which was being offered at the referendum, then it might be relevant, but it wasn't.

[Colly Wobbles]

It's a sad fact but it is fact - the British people are too stupid to understand AV.

Let's stick with what we know

[Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)]

Hmmm, as point out to Mark on his blog when he posted this before (a hat tip would have been polite), Yellow would not have won under AV, and even worse, what would have happened under FPTP where every candidate received one vote?

Ugh. FPTP comes out of this scenario terribly. No winner at all.

[Ricardo's Ghost]

"It's a sad fact but it is fact - the British people are too stupid to understand AV."

To be fair to the British people, it so far seems to be mainly the No2AV campaign that is too stupid to understand AV. The campaign is so woeful I'm beginning to wonder if it's been sabotaged by secret AV supporters.

This is a classic example. The cast of Auf Wiedersehn Pet are in fact using a variant of Borda (where preferences are weighted - it attempts to pick the least offensive and divisive candidate, and tends to be used in society elections, and most famously for the Eurovision Song Contest). Is it too much to ask that the No2AV campaign employ someone, anyone, who understands voting methods?

[David Hollins]

I have a great choice here:

FPTP: Tory safe seat held by a Notting Hill gay (100 miles from here)
AV: Advantages for the LD, who are a bunch of lying scumbags round here on local issues.

Great - democracy, eh? You cannot beat it. I won't vote to protest at this nonsensical situation - erm, but then about 20% of the population will decide it for me. Oh good.

[Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street!]

Dorsetdumpling, we are speaking about a vote on the system to elect future governments. This is NOT a topic for humour!

Oh dear Robert! I thought you had left Usian Bolt on the starting grid but no, here he is back again to run in an irrelevant race. Perhaps he could change sport and be the winning jockey in the next Grand National or would you blame AV if he fell at Beachers Brook?