Tags

ed says, ‘No to AV’




I joined up with the ‘Take Back Parliament’ movement when it first began, and joined in the ‘Yes to Fair Votes’ and ‘Yes to PR’ (PR - proportionate representation). Thereafter, Clegg’s minions took over the organisation and steered it to its current, ‘Yes to FairER votes’, and hence, ‘No to PR’ and ‘No to Fair Votes’ route.

So no. This ‘Take Back Parliament a Bit’ movement can, as my american brothers put it, kiss my ass. No to AV. I received my voting notification, and i’m saying ‘No to AV’, and ‘Yes to Get Your Act together and Your head out of your ass and campaign for ‘Proportionate Representation’.

Reason 1 - the sociological/psychological factor

Isn’t that a contradiction? Didn’t i sign up with the TBP movement as the FPP system is not really representative. Yes. But there’s something i’m aware of, and skips the attention of those inclined toward immediate gratification - that when we choose the lesser evil of alternatives as a ‘less radical’ step toward change - as the twits running the ‘yes campaign’ put it, that immediately leads to the engine of compensation and recuperation turning immediately, which leads to a change in people’s personalities over time, and which in turn leads to them taking for the norm that which they might otherwise spit at.

For incontrovertible evidence, all one has to do is to look at all the the ‘less radical steps’ people have made over history, and appreciate how this has led to personality evolution to the point that they do not, today, have a problem with not having that which their foreparents compromised in the past through compromise. This is especially the case as the young are born into a status quo that is compromised through our prior compromise. Whilst we might be aware that we have compromised, and thus maybe feel the conflict between what we have given up and what we have received in return, the young are not afforded such first-hand conflicts.

Secondly, with the continuation of the FPP system, people might get pissed off about it enough to really get a ‘Fair Votes’ system as opposed to the sellout TBP’s movement, ‘Fairer Votes Now’ nonsense. The ability to compensate and recuperate in the face of a backed-up toilet leads to the production of stronger air fresheners, and one taking a dump in the neighbour’s front lawn. But if we refrain from such compensatory and recuperative devices and vices, we might just end up doing the right thing from the start and not compromising our neighbour in return for immediate gratification through the ‘baby steps’ and ‘less radical’ AV system.

I suspect that those leading the ‘Yes Campaign’ already had AV as their goal from the outset - through secret meetings with the Lib-Dems perhaps. They then got people, including myself, to sign up with the ‘Fair Votes Now!’ campaign whilst people were still pissed off about the election results. Thereafter, they started talking about being ‘less radical’ and ‘taking baby steps’ via AV. Lots of people fell for it. They were left without an alternative by signing up with a movement that ensured that their agenda would be the only alternative.

Having experienced the evolution of a fascist and racial supremacist (confucian) state (singapore) from its beginnings to maturity, which the Brits haven't, and the many ways and means via which fascism is reinforced and democracy compromised first hand, I didn’t fall for that.


Reason 2 - the marginalisation factor


“Anyone getting more than 50% (under the Alternative Vote system) of these is elected automatically. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of voting.”

Under the FPP system, a minority party, for instance, the Socialist Party, might be able to kick up a fuss over their having 5% of the votes and yet not having 5% of the seats in parliament. The public are constantly made aware that this is not a representative system. But this consciousness of the unfairness of the system is compromised where their votes or 2nd/3rd/etc choices are redistributed to the major parties.
In other words, the minority parties are immediately placed at a greater disadvantage than they are under the current FPP system. You might think that, ‘hey, you’re talking crap. Either way, the minority parties are still not elected as they don’t have enough votes.’. No mate, they are at a greater disadvantage here because the people are not as conscious of the fact that the percentage of votes they have does not translate to seats in parliament. Under the FPP system, a minority party, for instance, the Socialist Party, might be able to kick up a fuss over their having 5% of the votes and yet not having 5% of the seats in parliament. The public are constantly made aware that this is not a representative system. But this consciousness of the unfairness of the system is compromised where their votes or 2nd/3rd/etc choices are redistributed to the major parties. Thus, people are given the impression that their votes still count where in fact, it is taken from the parties they are cast for and given to the bigger parties.

And the public, knowing that this is going to be done, are going to start ‘getting around the problem’ and to ensure that their votes are not given to other parties, they might not even vote for these minority parties. Instead, they will vote be voting for one of the top parties to make sure their votes count. In that case, minority parties are going to be further marginalised.

Sum

The UK isn’t some new democracy still scampering around in diapers. It is supposed to be the ‘mother of all parliaments’ for goodness sakes. What is this ‘baby steps’ thing the jackasses and ‘celebs’ like Eddie Izzard and Billy Bragg running the ‘Fairer Votes Campaign’ are talking about as a justification for supporting AV?
I’m not for compromise here. The UK isn’t some new democracy still scampering around in diapers. It is supposed to be the ‘mother of all parliaments’ for goodness sakes. What is this ‘baby steps’ thing the jackasses and ‘celebs’ like Eddie Izzard and Billy Bragg running the ‘Fairer Votes Campaign’ are talking about as a justification for supporting AV? If they aren’t ready to take on the responsibilities that come with leading a movement within one of the oldest democracies on the planet, they should step down and sell bobby hats to tourists and leave the adult stuff to those who don’t have their heads up their asses. What the hell are entertainers doing advising the people? They are entertainers who spend most of their time making too much money for too little. Not professional thinkers. (I personally like Billy Bragg’s songs, but when it comes to insight, i’d rather he shut up and let the pro-philosophers and thinkers take the stage.)

Any movement toward fairer votes must, at least, ensure that the smallest party is protected. As the saying goes, every society is known by the way it treats its most disadvantaged or the least. Voting for AV doesn’t say much about the future evolution of our consciousness of minorities, generically speaking.

You know what the ‘pandora’s box’ story is about? Let me tell you. It means that the smallest error on our part gives birth to a host of other errors that are even more difficult to control. But the ‘good’ thing about it all is that when the other evils are freed, they will immediately began to work on our personalities to the point that we are numbed enough intellectually and perspectivally to not notice the ensuing evils that come from a single turn of the key.


ed





0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo