![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 16th, 2011
The Lords have once again inserted a "minimum 40% turnout" clause into the AV referendum.
And while the idea that "if nobody can be bothered voting on the subject we shouldn't bother changing seems, on the surface, reasonable, in fact it's a massive wrecking point.
Because it turns every abstaining person into a no vote. Worse than that - it makes it in the interest of the no voters to simply not vote.
Let's say that you're going to vote no - and the actual intentions seem likely to be 38% yes, 36% no, 26% don't care.
Now, if you vote for the choice you actually believe in, you lose.
But if all of the No votes simple stay at home - BAM - suddenly it's 100% yes, but with a turnout of of 38%, and the No votes win.
It's taking a vote on a subject that's designed to get people's real voting intentions out of them, and making it massively in the interests of one side to vote tactically (in this case, not at all). It's gaming (and obfuscating) the system, pure and simple.
And while the idea that "if nobody can be bothered voting on the subject we shouldn't bother changing seems, on the surface, reasonable, in fact it's a massive wrecking point.
Because it turns every abstaining person into a no vote. Worse than that - it makes it in the interest of the no voters to simply not vote.
Let's say that you're going to vote no - and the actual intentions seem likely to be 38% yes, 36% no, 26% don't care.
Now, if you vote for the choice you actually believe in, you lose.
But if all of the No votes simple stay at home - BAM - suddenly it's 100% yes, but with a turnout of of 38%, and the No votes win.
It's taking a vote on a subject that's designed to get people's real voting intentions out of them, and making it massively in the interests of one side to vote tactically (in this case, not at all). It's gaming (and obfuscating) the system, pure and simple.