Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
That's right, Lee.
I voted yes although I dont really want AV, I want PR (along with a full elected republic as well please).
However, its not going to pass in a million years. It must be a YES and 40% turnout I think (according to the Lords anyway)... sigh voting for a compromise I dont believe in has me feel even more sullied than when Lib Dems got into bed with Dave
I have to say I'll vote no. I would prefer a candidate that won by FPTP than one that won on second or third choices. If that happens you''ll just get patronising candidates who sit on the fence. Also If I vote for candidate A and he/she's FPTP but under 50% the chances are my second vote wont be considered whereas someone voting for the candidate that gets eliminated gets another vote.
Curious question that I think I know the answer to. There are 5 candidates A.B.C.D.E. and in no. of votes they come in that order. So second round E's votes are redistributed to their 2nd choice ones. After that let's say D is eliminated. D's votes are a combination of voters first and second choices. When these votes are redistributed do those that put D as 1st choice get their second choice vote or does it automatically go to third because it's now the third round? I must assume that the voters who put D as no.1 get there 2nd choice to count
Me too, Curly - PR is ultimately what I'd prefer...
I do think AV has got to be better than FPTP though...
We do NOT want a republic. As Her Majesty, the Queen is our head of state and has to give Royall assent to any new proposed laws, before they are passes, it restricts the influence that the EU has over us.
If you think the EU are interferring in our affairs now, it would be much worse if we were a republic.
However, I do think that the monarchy should be vastly scaled dow, with a lot less minor Royals.
The adversarial nature of FPTP means we get a lurch to the left when Labour get in, followed by a lurch to the right when the Tories get in, then back again, and so on.
Coalitions might force parties to be more centrist in their approach, so the various parties would be less tempted towards extreme policies and tinkering in things that take too long to prove their worth (e.g. education changes, NHS restructures, etc.)
I voted under AV in the Australian elections when I lived there and I much prefer it as I feel I can vote for who I want to win and that vote is registered. I then lose that vote if that candidate doesn't win but my second vote is then activated, retaining the one-person-one-vote mantra so beloved by David Cameron.
But I really don't understand the first poster voting No due to not liking Nick Clegg. This is not about the people, or the parties, it's about our voting system and what we think is fairer. I don't like what the Conservative-LibDem Coalition is doing, but I'm still voting Yes when I get home from Glasgow tonight (BA willing...).
I dont think the EU has too much influence now...it costs a lot, and is mostly useless, but actually there are some huge gaps in our societies laws and morals that the EU helps to fill. Part of this is due to our lack of written constitution of course.
(sorry dont pelt me with stones please eurosceptics
)
The European convention on Human Rights is misused by terrorists and criminals to get a more cushy life in jail.
Article 2, the right to life has been used to prevent us ever having the right to reintroduce the death penalty for murder. If we choose to bring back this fair and just sentence for the perpetrators of vicious, sexually motivated murder, then that should be the choice of Parliament, not Brussels.
Before all of you 'do gooders' say that it is inhumane for the state to take a life, just think to yourself that someone who has murdered someone else hasn't shown any respect for their victim's right to life, so why should the state show them any leniency?
Minky - I didn't say all of Labour is in favour of AV, I know John 'Attack Dog' Reid isn't. The party is split but Milliband is in favour, as are a few others who's opinion I respect.
Rickster - we don't have the death penalty in this country because of uncertainty surrounding convictions. One of the tennents of the English criminal justice system is that it is better than 100 guilty men go free than the state unjustly imprison an innocent man. We as a nation were in danger of developing a habit of letting guilty men hang (Timothy Evans ring any bells?) and it had to stop.
The death penalty doesn't work as a deterance either. If it did, there wouldn't be the thousands and thousands of people on death row in the US or the Carribbean.
Yes, perhaps. And I'm exaggerating a little too. But wreaking havoc amongst the Lib Dems fills me with joy, and I think AV largely benefits people who don't really know what they think but just hate Tories. I also think this notion of "the progressive centre" is quite a dubious one and I reject the idea that Britain's right-on sensible urban people are suffering under the yoke of bigoted yokels rigging the system.
When the death penalty was abolished in the 1960s, we didn't have forensic science and DNA analysis. Nowadays it's much easier to scientifically link someone to a crime, and the death penalty would only be given in situations where there's conclusive forensic evidence to link a defendant to a crime.
I'm not calling for a compulsory death sentence for murder, just that it should be a sentencing option for a judge to pass if they see fit.
AllNew TB Maybe the fact that in the U.S. it can take decades for a death sentence to be actually carried out is the lack of deterent not the sentence itself.
Rickster hopefully nobody is convicted at all unless the case is proven against "all reasonable doubt" in which case no one who's innocent would ever be convicted of anything but that's not the case unfortunately. Having said that I also believe that there should be a death penallty although once on jury duty we had a major problem as one member admited that the accused was guilty but refused to find him so as they didn't want to be responsible for sendind someone to prison. There maybe more cases like that if the jury thought it possible that a person may hang and so more guilty murderers be found not guilty.
Rickster - in the scenario you mention it is highly unlikely the old man would serve any length of time in prison at all. Although the sentence is 'life' the judge can say there is no requirement for someone to serve time. As it is, cases such as these are usually tried as manslaughter which has no minimum sentence.
DNA is not infalliable. No scientific evidence is. DNA can prove someone was in a certain place, or holding something or had contact with something. It is not video coverage of the event, it does not take motive or state of mind into account. In the case of Timonthy Evans, the blanket his wife and child were wrapped in when they were found may well have had Evans' DNA on it as well as their killer, Christie. They shared a house after all. The murdered woman and child would more than likely have DNA on or around them from both men. It is thought Christie raped this woman - his DNA would be found on her. It wouldn't need the prosecution to be too clever to say Evans killed his wife in a jealous rage after he caught her having sex with Christie. As we now know, Christie confessed to kiiling her.
A criminal justice system based on retribution will become over time barbaric and reactionary. How do you know that families will receive 'closure' once the alleged killer of their loved one is indeed killed? What if the victim had no family (again I refer to Timothy Evans)? Should the state not impose revenge in these cases? 'Closure' can come through any number of routes. An eye for an eye isn't one of them.
AllNewTB
The post mortem on Mrs Evans showed sexual intercourse took place at point of death. With DNA proven to be Christies it might have made things pretty awkward for him and rthe right man may well have been convicted.
We are, however drifting away from OP,
A post-mortem examination cannot prove sex happened at point of death. It can find no tissue response, which is usual during sex (particularly rape) but not when sex took place.
But yes, we are drifting...
I would consider AV but after their behaviour in power I wouldn't want a Lib Dem government. and they would be the biggest benefactors of AV
Also I ask myself when the AV vote goes against them do they have any motivation to continue in the coalition ?
Voted yes.
I know Cornish folk are looking to "spoil" their ballot papers in protest to "Devonwall" being the new constituency which would be introduced in the electoral reform so we may see some strange figures from the SW. Most Kernow nationalists prefer AV if pushed (with independence).
https://totriornottotri.wordpress.com
I voted No.
What I object to is the way that the last candidate's votes are redistributed first. So those who vote for fringe, weirdo or extremist outfits get two bites of the cherry. Put another way, if the BNP or SWP is last, the people who voted for it as first preference get more weight attached to their votes.
AV seems to be neither one thing nor the other - let's either go for proper PR or keep FPTP.
Nor do I buy the argument about more coalitions. The Tory and Labour parties are themselves broad coalitions.
And it's a disgrace that there is no quorum requirement for the referendum to be valid.
I went with no. if you're going to overhauil the system, do it properly, rather than fudge the issue and produce something that seems about as much use as a chocolate fire guard.
And that I certainly agree with.
I voted no. They've a weird PR system with the Scottish parliament and it's a complete buggers muddle. One constituency MSP and an assortment of PR elected others for a group of constituencies ... so you really don't know who is represnting you really. We really don't need to add another system into the equation.
I'm not sure about a quorum requirement. I can see that a referendum where the decision is to either carry on with the status quo or make a change might generate more interest from those wanting a change, but surely if people can't even be bothered to vote, whether they be on one side or another, that's beside the point. It obviously didn't matter that much to them.
If the referendum is ill-conceived or there's anything stopping the vast majority of people voting then that's another matter but if it's clear what people are voting for then the views of the people who turn out to vote should carry weight no matter what percentage of the electorate they constitute. Anyone who didn't vote can't complain, anyone who did, did what they could, as did their opposition.
But it doesn't matter - after the economy goes into free fall some time before Xmas and the next bank bailout happens (Coming soon folks!) the Tories will become even more hated than Tommy the Clown and ipod wearers.
It doesn't matter if its FPTP, AV or dip dip dip... I confidently predict that the next Tory Prime Minister hasn't even been born yet.