Thursday, March 31, 2011

Alternative Voting Would Be A Cheating Of The Majority

How on earth does anyone, if not for the evil of political correctness, say that Alternative Vote(AV) is the best style of Voting? That opinion is questionable and completely unconvincing.

The AV system is cumbersome and at best, leaves the electorates with the second-best candidate [or choice]. 

The argument that the ‘selected’ winner is the choice of many is nothing near the truth. In the right sense, the redistribution of votes means the forcing of an ‘alternative’ choice on an entire electorate. It is a disjointed choice because a second choice is made based on a whole lot of different factors.

For instance, while I may chose my first choice for an array of reasons which may ring up to 100%, my second choice may be “just because of a few reasons”... And when this reasons are spread out, and then joined together, my choosing someone because he hates gay people, may actually be the least of the reasons why most others chose him as a second. Thus all those others may get him but for different single reasons, etc.

If a AV is to produce a clear result, then redistribution should not come into it
but re-casting of votes by the electorates after the losers, etc has been struck off. However, this system does not, in any way reduce the complexities of this system and could go on non-stop just like redistribution. Think of the resources involved.


Why would anyone need AV? Some has linked it to civil liberties, Human Rights, and all sorts of equalities; the usual suspects. But in truth, it is neither civil, nor right, and far from liberal. In actual sense, it is primitive, indecisive and unprincipled.

The above characters are today evident in all the supporters of the AV system. Did you check them out? Lets go one by of the key popular supporters:

Charles Kennedy? Indecisive; it took him months, even years to reach a decision on whether to resign as Leader of the Liberal Democrats. Even when he did 'half-decide', it took him even more time to decide whether to go for a challenge or resign outrightly… well, the drinks.
Caroline Lucas? Primitive; as the only woman-leader of a party in the 21st Century, it is sorry that she would join such a bunch of unprincipled-Others. But then she leads a single-issue party which is the reason for the primitiveness. Ok, I hear you, the Green are beginning to look at other issues; but how robust and how convinced do they appear? Terrible.
Ed Miliband? (no comments yet). But my party Leader is yet to make the mark. Six months since he became party Leader, albeit by the very same [rubbish] system, he is yet to establish a platform for the party. Of course, the Labour party knows where it stands at the moment: opposition. But what for? Regardless of the claim that work is going on in the background, the momentum is fading away for the party to indicate it is ready to govern.

Who else? No body.

So all the gimmick they can afford is to claim “AV will help us change the culture of our politics…” says my party Leader, Ed Miliband. But that’s feeble; and a no-reason at all. What AV will change is the system of putting the [same] people back where they are. Its by no means a culture or behaviour change.

But if you care for how to choose your politicians, then you must participate. And if at all you have a straightforward mind and want a clear-cut, simple and very decisive result; a NO vote is the answer. You don’t want to end up days without knowing who is the winner and you definitely don’t want to end up with the second-best or second-choice.

Say NO TO AV; and say it loud and clear!

No comments:

Subscribe by Email