GAH!

[andrewducker]

The BBC now has a "Best arguments for voting Yes or No" on AV page up.

And while I'm annoyed that the No campaign are still arguing that AV means
that some votes are counted more than others (clearly untrue - every round
counts all votes for people whose preferences are still in the running), I
am _furious_ at the awful arguments put forward by the Yes campaign.

The bit which seems to actually grab people (an end to the split vote
problem, where you can have 70% of people voting for an X-wing party, and a
Y-wing party gets the seat) is relegated to an aside in point 4, which 90%
of people will never see.

I am incredibly frustrated by their continued incompetence at getting their
message across.

Am I wrong? Do people really think that AV will make MPs work harder? Does
anyone really care about that? Is there any reason whatsoever for that to
be the top point?

Comments

[simont]

you can have 70% of people voting for an X-wing party, and a Y-wing party gets the seat

As long as the TIE fighter party doesn't get in ... :-)

[andrewducker]

I was wondering how fast someone would pick that up.

[simont]

I was idly wondering if there was some sort of voting-system joke about the line "Let him go! Stay on the leader." Couldn't quite make it make sense, though.

[andrewhickey.info]

(BTW I can't actually access your - or anyone's - LJ, so I don't know if anyone's commented on this there).

The reason for that is that all the messages were focus-group tested to death last year, and those were the ones the 'average person' claimed to care about at the time. But yes, the campaign has been horribly, horribly flawed.

[simont]

I can't actually access your - or anyone's - LJ

Phew, it's not just me having trouble today!

I find that Firefox on three completely different machines gets a blank page back from every request, but all other browsers I've tried have worked. I've raised a support request, naturally.

[andrewhickey.info]

You're right, it does seem to be a Firefox compatibility thing. I was running IceWeasel (slightly modified FF) and couldn't access it, but can with Chromium.

[matgb]

Don't know what the issue is, but here's a fix:
Request #1297202

[andrewducker]

My problem with focus groups is that people lie.

If you say to them "Did you like X or Y?" then they'll tell you whichever answer they think you want to hear, or whichever answer makes them feel better about themselves.

Unless they gave 500 of leaflet A out, and 500 of leaflet B out, and then held mock referendums, I don't trust the results they got.

[andrewhickey.info]

Absolutely. I think my friend Dave Page is right - the fundamental problem is that the people running the campaign are lobbyists, not campaigners. They're used to putting pressure on MPs, not going out and talking to actual voters, and so they've badly miscalculated how you do that.

[jack]

I don't know. To me, the "make MPs work harder" is just made up, and the "don't need to avoid splitting the vote" is the killer feature. And I assumed other people would feel the same, even if they didn't previously know the issues. And a few anecdotal reportings of talking to someone previously unconcerned about the issue bear it up. But maybe I'm wrong, and the more blatant lie is more persuasive *shrug*

[andrewhickey.info]

"Make MPs work harder" is hardly a *lie* - it's reasonable to think that MPs will have to try harder to get votes if they can't rely on getting in on 30% of the vote in their area. Whether you *WANT* that or not is a different matter, of course.

[jack]

Hm, maybe that was over the top of me, sorry; I was trying not to give the "Yes" publicity more of a free ride than the "No" campaign. I agree that there will be some tendency that having a better way of expressing dissent to an MP may encourage them in some respects, but it still seems a stretch to state it as fact.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I don't think people care about MPs working harder. I don't think people really have much of an idea of how hard MPs work. What people think abotu that, in my experience anyway, is that MPs are paid far too much, and many of them appear to be criminally incompetant.

But being criminal doesn't seem to be a barrier to getting re-elected.

There are many better arguments the yes campaign could be using.

I mean, I'm amazed they haven't been talking about the horribly low t urn-outs we have in the UK for elections, and saying look, the system is so badly broken, only about half of us can be arsed voting. Lets change that.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I don't think people really have much of an idea of how hard MPs work

I agree with this. I suspect that most people have no clue what MP's do most of the time and have no idea about what MP's do for individual constituents or have any idea what parliamentary committees etc. do. The most commonly seen part of parliamentary politics on TV is PMQ's, which is frankly nowadays nothing more than a pissing contest.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Aye. And I think most people have no clue because they really don't care. Except for the expected grumblings when MPs go on their long holiday breaks and suchlike.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

Well, I personally don't care about MPs working harder, because I doubt that changing the voting system is going to increase effort. It might change targeting and advertising, but I don't think anyone is going to work harder.

[broin.livejournal.com]

An X-Wing party? A Y-Wing party? AWESOME. Pew pew, Red Leader.

And yes, the left column is unclear while the right column gets me by the emotional balls.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

Argh! Yes, that page is appalling and depressing.

It makes it sound like the BBC objectively endorse the truth of both columns, so "On one hand, AV is unfair; but on the other hand, it does make MPs work harder. So if you care about fairness, vote no, but if you care about MPs working hard, even at the expense of fairness, vote yes." Not only misleading, but makes the yes supporters look really small-minded.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

That's a pile of pants, I agree point 4 is best pro AV argument and the working harder bit is both iffy and possibly not desirable anyway because what they actually mean is making them spend more time in the constituency and speaking personally, I wasn't very impressed when I wrote to my MP about a bill going through parliament and was informed he wouldn't be taking part in the vote because it was on one of his constituency days.

Bah. If that is the best the Yes camp can manage, I'm not surprised people think the No lot are going to win :(

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

See?

This is why faffing about trying to get people warmed up is bad. Just 'You're wrong. This is right. End of.'

[andrewducker]

Except that that's completely unpersuasive. I mean I'm not even slightly convinced by it.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

What I mean is that the point in the link you posted yesterday about how to convince people you need to get them on side first seems to me to be the principle which leads both the Yes and No campaigns to build their arguments on crappy emotive stuff.

Which granted, convinces neither you nor me. But it surely must convince a lot of people, and unfortunately, it's First Past the Brain who wins.

[andrewducker]

Aaah. I more meant that "You're wrong, this is right" doesn't convince people. Emotive arguments are necessary (people are emotional, after all), and alienating people doesn't help you win - unless alienating 30% of the audience gives you 51% support.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

But with emotive arguments, you can win people over with total crap. Whoever has the best emotive arguments, the most range, and got to people first has a head start.

Using more emotive arguments is the wrong fix for this bug.

[andrewducker]

a) Not everyone can be won over with emotive arguments that have nothing behind them. There needs to be some sense in there as well, because otherwise you look like an idiot when someone whose as good a speaker as you with better facts takes you apart.
b) Any argument that's not about pure maths or basic science has emotion in it. When you talk about the "fairness" of electoral systems you're appealing to people's emotions.

We need to speak to the things people care about. If we don't talk about the bits of politics that they think are wrong, and show them how it can be more in line with what they want (both emotive things) then you're not going to make them care enough to vote, let alone vote in your favour.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with democracy is the people!

[andrewducker]

New brains for all!

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm so sick of the AV campaign's shitty campaigning.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Thankfully, it looks like the official Yes campaign may at last be getting one thing right. Their second referendum broadcast has just appeared, and it's a re-filmed version of Dan Snow's coffee or pub video. Pity they didn't focus on the point it makes from the start (as you say). But let's hope too late isn't too little in this case.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, saw that on LDV.

And, of course, that video is the source of the fantastic leaflet I had on my journal the other day.

I just hope it gets out to enough people. I'll take a look at it when I get home (no video at work).

[undeadbydawn.livejournal.com]

I'm 100% pro AV, but have mostly ignored the YES campaign since it's cringingly fucking awful and seems to be run by idiots with little or no idea of how to talk to the electorate.

I have been arguing AV to anyone that declares uncertainty. Whether that is helping, I do not know.

to answer your final question: no. it shouldn't even be on the list.

[undeadbydawn.livejournal.com]

to clarify:

the pro AV argument should be that you have a *much* stronger expression of who you want in Government, not that the people in it will behave differently.