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

[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!