en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/979519 Comments by Andrew Hickey http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/02/fundamentally-fraudulent-nature-of-yes.html#IDComment128600472 "Why, then, are supporters of electoral reform so enthusiastically embracing this appalling proposition? They cannot - do not - regard it as any more than a stop-gap. Cynically, they calculate that while AV would not actually be an improvement it would create an appetite for constant tinkering with the electoral system." Nonsense. It is possible to prefer a system like STV while still actually thinking AV is a genuine improvement. I don't know a single campaigner for a Yes vote who actually thinks this - you're libelling a huge group of people there, claiming a motivation for them that simply isn't the case. "(If, that is, proportionality is truly what matters to them, rather than creating the conditions for permanent left-of-centre government.)" Proportionality is *one* thing that matters. For me, and for many other campaigners, preferentiality also matters - and to me at least it matters *more* than proportionality. If I were given the choice between a preferential, non-proportional system like AV or a proportional, non-preferential system like the d'Hondt system used in European elections, I would choose AV every time. I would also choose AV over any party list system, whether proportional or not, because I want voters to be able to vote for individuals, not parties. AV may not be everything I - or a lot of other reformers - want. But I - and they - still genuinely think it a better system *on its own merits* than the current one. I will consider it a great improvement if we do get AV even if we never make any other changes to our system. Of all the systems I know of, AV is my second-favourite, and I would rather have my second-favourite system than one as bad as FPTP, just as I would rather have my second preference in an election. Claiming to be able to read your opponents' minds and that they don't really want the things they say they want is beneath you. Try arguing on the merits of the two systems, not on what you imagine the motives of those who oppose you to be. Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:26:08 +0000 http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/02/fundamentally-fraudulent-nature-of-yes.html#IDComment128600472 http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/09/things-that-really-matter.html#IDComment97523840 I think you're being a little unfair here. The existece of a greater injustice is no reason not to fight against a lesser one - otherwise we would have to all agree on the single worst injustice happening at any given time, and condemn anyone fighting any lesser ones. So I could be attacked for campaigning for a fairer voting system when there are people living in dictatorships, for campaigning for gay marriage when there are countries where gay people are executed, and so on. Yes, more should be done about these terrible, evil acts - although what we in the west *can* do I'm not sure of - but that doesn't mean that those who are campaigning against another (what they see as) injustice are wrong if they don't constantly condemn it. Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:53:41 +0000 http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/09/things-that-really-matter.html#IDComment97523840