To AV, or not to AV?
 

Can't believe we've not had a thread on this. Or perhaps it's not so surprising, as very few people outside of the Westminster village seem to give a smeg.

What are your views? Will you vote on it today?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I did my postal vote weeks ago and voted no to AV.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Yup, I did my post vote a couple of weeks back.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I'll be voting in person ... Scottish parliament elections are also today so I will have three ballot papers to complete on my way out later this morning.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Will be voting later this evening.

No, will be my choice.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

i will be voting -but i still don't know which way -if its a vote about AV why isn't there a third choice ???

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Yes, why is the vote on AV done under first-past-the-post system?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Will be voting Yes to AV about time we got rid of this archaic Victorian FPTP system, most of the developed world do not use FPTP, they use AV of STV

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Parties supporting FPTP

Conservatives
BNP
Communist Party

Strange Bedfollows

Those supporting AV

Labour (a significant number including Leader Ed Miliband)
Liberal Democrats
Green Party
UKIP
Plaid Cymru
SNP
A number of smaller parties

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

What I find hard to accept is that something as important as this might well be determined by only 30% of the electorate. :confused:

I wonder what the turnout would be if it was a referendum on our membership of the EU......

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Voted on the way to work this morning, and stuck my X next to 'Yes' :)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Voted Yes this Morning.

It's not going to win but I prefer some adjustment to the situation now. I live in a very safe Tory seat, the constituency contains some very wealthy areas of the UK but the town I live is more middle class to working class. We tend to return a mix of all three parties in the council election. Either way, My vote is often utterly pointless, along with most of my town, because the towns of the other side of Epping Forrest will return the same Tory MP.

I there are plenty of valid reasons to vote No. However the No campaign has been an utter disgrace, making up complete fabrications in their posters it's a wonder they got away with it. They made up the cost of the £250 million to switch to AV (And then had posters with babies saying they needed medical care and not a new voting system) when they included the cost of the referendum itself, voting machines that won't be needed, and invented another £50 million from heaven knows where.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I'd be interested to know how many people moan / whine about it adn didn't even bother to vote.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Anything the BNP are against I'm for..:D

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

They're against Britain being overrun by immigrants.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Who - the BNP?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Yes.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

They are also intellectually stunted morons.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

yes to what AV ???????

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Fair point.

---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

No, to the BNP.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Actually I think you'll find that Labour has no policy position on AV - certainly there's no justification for listing them as a Party 'supporting' it.

Once you compile a list of parties which actually do support AV as a policy, you find you have a list of fringe parties for whom changing the electoral system is simply a matter of self interest. No surprise there.

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 ----------

They're also against AV, so on that basis will you be voting no to AV today?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Another thought - I've had more people turn up (as opposed to leaflet drops) to try to get me to vote for / against AV than for the actual local election thing.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

The AV issue directly affects the politicians - the electoral system is what determines who gets to stick their snout in the trough for five years. No surprise they've all taken a keen interest in it. ;)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I've already voted for Who is this Nick Clegg person anyway?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Fair enough for a CF poll, but you might be surprised if you turn up at the polling station expecting to find that option there.

You are going to vote?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Which ever wins, the working class will pay, that's those who keep the rest

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I do love a rigorous piece of political analysis.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

No.
I don't bother with politics.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

If anyone thinks that changing the voting system would prevent politicians having their snout in the trough, they will be mistaken.

The key thing with this, which is what I have failed to see discussed in any meaningful way from any camp in the av discussion is whether politicians would be more accountable to their electorate, rather than their party policy and would thus vote and promote their local electorate's concerns rather than party issues. Will av end up with a risk of hung parliaments or favour a particular party to a greater degree than the current system. How likely is it that a minority, perhaps the third running candidate on first preference votes gets in because of the countback system.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

No.
as long as it's the right one :)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

you should be in politics you have some great answers to peoples questions ;)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Because it's a binary choice, obviously :)

(I assume you were joking but there's not smiley!)

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------

Me neither, actually.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Our area has still not received the much-heralded pamphlet that explains AV.

I looked it up on the net, and have decided it's a mash-up that makes no real sense, and is not true PR, so it's a NO from me.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

This short clip from Auf Wiedersehen Pet explains AV in more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTI3Xpkp0Y

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

:D yep

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I've got enough leaflets to wallpaper the toilet..:rolleyes:

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

No it doesn't because it's wrong. There's no "points", it's a ranking system. So that clip does not accurately represent AV at all.

Besides, if you can't have your first choice, wouldn't you rather have your second than basically have your vote wasted and therefore your voice not heard at all?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

The theory goes that because any politician has to win 50 % of the vote in their area to get in, they are less likely to favour small groups of voters that they think can help them win.

Under the current system, it is theoretically possible for a politician to stay in because he or she has a small but dedicated group of followers that are just enough to tip the balance in their favour..


There is also the perception that if you live in an area that supports a party particularly strongly, and you vote against that party, your vote is essentially wasted. I know that, as I am Liberal and live in an area that (apart from a few months in 1998 when it was hung) has had a strongly tory council since the 60s. This leads to people becoming disillusioned with the system.

I don't know for sure if AV will be better, but I do know one thing. If we are not to be gradually overtaken by the far right parties (who do seem to have a dedicated following more so than the mainstream or left wing parties), we need to get more people voting. One way I think that might happen is if they feel their vote will achieve something.

As such, something needs to change. Now.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

It'll be a massive Yes for me. It's not the ideal form of PR but it's a step in the right direction.:)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

What if there isn't (in my eyes) a suitable second choice - does that mean that someone else has more choice than me? I want to vote for who I support, not someone who I really don't support, which means there will be a lot of tactical voting (2nd and 3rd choices against a party, rather than for).

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Agreed, in many case my vote is less about who I do want, and more about who I don't want. Damage limitation, especially when manifestos are no longer single issue, but multiple ones. None of the politicians ever do me any favours. I can rarely envisage a time when I am would have a second candidate preference.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Not a bad imho. There's been a few politicians over the years who manage to get returned in their constituencies because they're traditional Party seats. Quite a few of those were responsible for the worst excesses of expense fiddling. If a bit of tactical voting had been used against them we'd all have been better off.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I understand where you are coming from (and agree), but I believe most of them were in extremely safe seats (Labour and Tory) where they weigh the votes, not count them, so I am not sure if this is a valid proposition.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Ed Milliband thinks it's a good idea. That'll be a firm NO from me then.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

C4 Factchecker on EM's statements on AV.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Who said it was ;)

As there are only two choices, then one of the choices will get at least 50% of the vote (which is the whole reason for AV)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

True in many cases but not all, I suspect a certain recently jailed MP would have been out on his behind if av was available in his constituency. Robin Cook held mostly 5 figure majorities but I think Devine was down to a couple of thousand. Some tactical voting by Libs to SNP would have got rid of his sorry tail.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I am opposed to AV purely because i firmly believe in one person one vote and this system would give some more then one vote or more to the point their one vote would count more then others thats not fair and it isn't democracy. Lib dems of course will support this they would support flick of a coin if they thought it would give them more mp's.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

We did have a thread...you even posted in it ;) :)

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...al-reform.html

I'll be voting "Yes".


What's so complex about ranking candidates in order of preference? Are people too stupid to count past 1?

If you'd prefer PR, then voting No seems strange to me. Yes, AV is not PR, but it's a step in the right direction. If the result is a "No" (which is likely), it will probably completely close the door on any future chance of electoral reform...


Yup. The No campaign has been awful, IMO.

AV will cost £250 million? Wrong...

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ost-of-av/6410

AV will help the BNP? Wrong...

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...r-the-bnp/6273

Australia wants to get rid of AV? Wrong...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/...tive-vote.html

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

tbf, the "Yes" campaign have sometimes been a little flexible with the facts, re "The Tories elect their leader under AV".....

Neither side have covered themselves in glory, imho.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Then you simply put a "1" against your first choice and that's that.

No. It just means that they have decided to rank more than the one candidate.

Fine, but that shouldn't mean that others shouldn't have that choice :)

As I said, I think the point is that if you don't get your first choice then isn't having your second or third choice better than having no say at all?

Indidentally, this is merely a theoretical discussion for me as I have no real interest in Politics.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

It's also not true. Your vote isn't worth more than others, not will anyone have more than one vote.

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

Lots of tactical voting now. I often don't vote for the party I want to win because it's wasted, I look at who has the best chance of unseating my current MP and vote for them.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Voted no

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I haven't voted and have no intention of doing so.

Given how rarely we get plebiscites in the UK the mere existence of this referendum, it being part of a political power sharing deal rather than anything to do with issues the public do actually care about and want their voices heard on, is an affront.

I'm voting no to having plebiscites for political reasons and have reiterated demand for one on an issue which the public do want to speak about but the politicians don't want to listen to because they know the answer and won't like it.

No to AV, no to the AV referendum. Waste of time and money, if it were full PR sure, this joke of a compromise utterly pointless and a complete waste of 90 million of taxpayer's money.

---------- Post added at 17:22 ---------- Previous post was at 17:19 ----------

Cheers for that baseless incitement for class warfare. Actually the middle class and above will pay, that's those who pay the majority of the taxes but ho hum.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Hmmmm, funny business with votes. Couldn't have seen that coming...

http://order-order.com/2011/05/05/av...al-commission/

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

We're not very good at referendums here, once they're elected politicians tend to not give a crap what we think about anything.

No local elections in London and the turnout appears to be laughable.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I'm voting No for the reason that it should be one person one vote.

Pick the candidate you want to vote for and not a few others you might like just in case.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

There was a moderate turnout when I went to vote, mostly the older generations who seemed to be struggling with the 2 votes needed for the Scottish local election voting paper let alone ranking candidates in order of preference.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Three people who are voting No: David Cameron, Anne Widdecombe and NICK GRIFFIN.

Three very good reasons for me to vote Yes.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I need to complain to someone, I registered for postal voting before the last election, since then I get nothing in the post at all, not even the traditional polling card.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Re. "AV is too complicated / AV is too confusing"...

[Partially pinching from my own post in the original thread]

Although the UK only uses FPTP for electing MPs, it is not the only electoral system used in this country.

N. Ireland uses STV for local, European, and Assembly elections. Scotland uses STV for local elections. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Greater London Assembly use AMS. Great Britain uses the Party List system for European elections.

Those are all more complicated than FPTP. If people across the UK can handle those various systems, surely they could handle AV?

How hard would it be to explain how to vote in an AV-based General Election? How complicated or confusing would it be?

You just rank the candidates in order of preference, until you have no preferences left. If you only want to rank one, you can. If you want to rank three, you can. If you want to rank them all, you can. Surely people can understand that?

OK, there's more to it than "Put an 'X' next to the candidate you want. You may only vote for one candidate", but it's hardly complicated, though, and there'd be voter education if it went ahead.

What's wrong with e.g. ...

"Put a "1" next to your first choice candidate, a "2" next to your second choice candidate, and so on. You may vote for as many candidates as you wish, from just one candidate only through to all [six] candidates."

Is that really too complicated for the British voting public? Are they really too stupid to understand something as simple as that?

True. I don't think anything the "Yes" campaign has claimed has been anywhere near as bad as the some of the stuff the "No" campaign has come out with, however, plus at least they haven't used emotive scaremongering either.

Has the "Yes" campaign actually said the Tories use AV, rather than just say that they don't use FPTP?

The ERS only says that Labour & the Lib Dems use AV, while all I can find on the "Yes" website is "Political parties use it to elect their leaders".

AV is still "one person one vote".

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/d...0FAQ%20web.pdf

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths


And if you don't have any preferences other than your number 1 choice, you simply do not mark any candidates other than that one.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Just got back from the polling station having put a big fat X next to the 'NO'.

I can't believe how hard the Scotland Office is trying to sabotage the Holyrood elections yet again though - the referendum ballot is grey, the constituency ballot for Holyrood is (allegedly) lilac - but unless you hold the two side by side in a very well lit room, it's damned hard to tell them apart.

I predict more than a few will end up in the wrong ballot box.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I find myself agreeing with you. I am in a safe labour seat, so different party but same boat, useless vote every general election. The last election my MP was done for corruption on a prime time documentary and in combination with labour's poor time under brown still managed a majority in excess of 7k, labours lowest for 20 years on the seat and likely will be bottomed out at that. I got a NO leaflet through the door, read it and found they pount their points across well, but the problem was as you noticed a lot of it was rubbish made up but people will believe it, the leaflet was designed in my view to make people scared of change as it used a lot of fear tactics. Incidently I got no yes leaflet, so either the yes campaign has less funding or they less organised.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

This is the fatal flaw in AV: The grand claim that every MP has to achieve 50% support in order to get elected. Even if we leave aside the somewhat optimistic claim that a 2nd or 3rd preference vote amounts to anything like 'support', the fact is, if enough people fail to mark anything more than a first preference on their paper, sooner or later a returning officer is going to find out he's run out of papers to re-allocate before anyone in his constituency has crossed the magic 50% winning line.

AV is entirely capable of electing MPs who don't get that 50%. It isn't worth the name 'PR', is as likely to result in un-proportional results and frankly those who are enthusiastic about proportional representation should be campaigning against AV fervently.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Yep. Plus the party ballot sheet is freaking huge. That coupled with the small slot in the ballot box made it pretty difficult to post in.

Purely as an aside how come most other countries you see have clear ballot boxes but the UK ones are dark so you can't see inside them?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Trouble is that if the vote results in a 'no' to AV then the 'yes' campaigners will say that under an AV system they have won.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Personally I'd just like rather more of the electorate to get off their arses and go and vote.That way we might just make that 50% quorum.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

There is no quorum - that amendment was eventually defeated. In any case it would have been 40%. ;)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I hope you understand why normal elections get low turnouts, as FPTP is just aweful.

For this I cant vote as nothing came in the post.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I can entirely empathise with trying to get something large into a small slot.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I'd complain to Royal Mail... :)

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Break the chocolate bar into smaller pieces....

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

:D

Well AV certainly hasn't captured the imagination here - a very slow day according to the officials at our polling station.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I haven't voted ,to be honest i forgot all about it .From my point of view it seems to have crept up on me .I knew it was happening but until this morning i was never sure exactly what date and couldn't be arsed to find out because i really don't give a smeg

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

We don't get it, Hugh :shrug:

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Assuming the polls have now closed, we have a very interesting result. "No" wins on FPTP, but "Who is Nick Clegg" would hold the balance of power under AV. Hmm...

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Why change an easy system thats worked for 100's years.

I Voted No.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

'No' wins on AV as well as it's got 50% of the vote.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Did you type that on your manual typewriter;)

Not much of an argument really. I'd argue that it hasn't always worked at times and could have worked better at other times.

The self interest of both the Tories and the Labour parties when they have large majorities has been, imho, detrimental to this country too often in my lifetime.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

It was 49.something% when I posted. Someone has voted since.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

if you count a succesful government meaning the voting system works then yeah maybe.

but as a democratic system its a failure because only part of the country is democratic during general elections. More than half is safe seats, its not even a minority problem.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

What is this constant nonsense about safe seats being undemocratic? Everybody in that seat has one vote. If the majority in the seat wish to support the same party time after time, that's their democratic right.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Well the vote on here is probably flattering the 'yes' side compared with the national result, unsurprisingly, although the turnout is probably similar to London's :p:

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

It's debatable whether it has on national level. There has been at least one election where the winner got well under a third of the vote.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

As i saw it represented on TV av means if i vote for numpty number one and he doesn't get anywhere near enough support my vote then gets counted for numpty number two and so on till a 50% margin is achieved that to me is my vote getting counted more then once which i don't believe is fair. Seems to me AV rewards the ignorant as they can vote willy nilly and get better returns whilst those who look into the issues have some understanding and vote for credible candidates only get their vote counted the once.

I may be wide of the mark but thats how it came across to me so who is to blame me for getting the wrong end of the stick or the people explaining it for not doing a better job. Pretty irrelevent really seems certain the country (well those that bothered) has voted to bin it so.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Grrr! Pet hate #1! Sorry... moving on... :D

You are not getting more that one vote though. AV is simply an elimination system.

True to an extent I suppose, but then FPTP has it's flaws too.

The idea with AV (and, of course, PR) is that if you don't get your first choice then at least you get your second, or third; whatever. Bascially at least you get someone in who you preferred over someone you didn't.

And even my explanation isn't brilliant :p:

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

because the votes for anyone but the winner are discarded instead of been added to the national pool. Thats not democratic. also votes above the winning margin get wasted. 19 million in 2005.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54

The fact is under FPTP only the marginal seats are important, there is occasional freak results in what should be safe seats but the marginals is where the campaigning is aimed at and where the leaders focus on. I am curious where your seat is since you defending FPTP.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

It seems to me that politicians on the whole don't care about falling electorate numbers which in part is due to the fact that many of us have for years been represented by someone we have no faith in and indeed despise and therefore see no point in voting because we never get anyone different.
In my own case it was the Duck House MP whom we had for over 30 years and it took the expenses furore to get rid of him.

If they did care then they would go for a system which gets more people voting..such as fining those who don't bother to vote, if they must stick with FPTP.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

FPTP will eventually be under more pressure again, most objection to it is from younger people, eventually older people will die off and the support for it will thin down, maybe not in my lifetime but eventually.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

There is no "national pool" of votes, as you put it. In a general election we all elect a local representative to a national assembly. The weakness that exists in our system lies in the strength of political party machines which seek to ensure that once at Westminster, your local representative adheres to a Party line.

Proportional systems exacerbate this problem by weakening, if not entirely eliminating, the link between an individual MP and an individual constituency. AV seeks to avoid that problem but at the same time, because it is not electing one person to one post, but simultaneously many people to many posts, it is not remotely proportional either (and neither does it generate a 'national pool' of votes, or even a regional pool for that matter - election of members is still confined to one member from one constituency).

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

that link is a myth?

my MP was hand picked by labour, and guarantueed success in election, she has yet to even respond to any queries from me. what link? the only way she is not getting reelected next election is if she doesnt stand. I dont give a rats ass about towing party line and is what they should do really anyway. But MP's not in safe seats are likely to work harder for their people, ie. not ignore requests and in turn the leading party has to think about the entire populace rather than just the marginal seats.

STV has the same sort of links as FPTP by the way. But is a PR system rather than the silly one now that has guarantueed results.

I will remind you again, under FPTP the majority of the country that is more than 50% is undemocratic and has the same result every general election.

I never said AV was proportional as well. In fact its almost as poor as FPTP which makes the referendum a mockery anyway. Another example of an illusion of democracy, even if the tories lost the referendum the system in place would not be too different. So here it is either poor voting system A or poor voting system B, cannot vote for good voting system A.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

You're reminding me of your *opinion* chrys, but there's no need, I understand where you're coming from. Your *opinion* is that safe seats are undemocratic. I disagree. A majority is a majority. A settled majority is a settled majority. If you don't like it, then get out on the stumps and campaign to change the views and voting habits of your neighbours. Anything else is just gerrymandering by other means.

A common whinge from the 'yes' campaign is the existence of a so-called 'progressive majority' in British politics, which is locked out of power by the rotten, nasty electoral system that we have in the UK. Well, guess what, the problem isn't the system, it's the Left's basic inability to put narrow ideological squabbles to one side in order to work effectively as a Party. They like AV because it would allow them to have their cake and eat it, squabbling to their hearts' content about the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead and then expecting still to win the vote come election day.

Changes to long-held political allegiances can and do happen - Scotland has spectacularly ditched its addiction to Labour over the last few years and now the SNP is going to come very, very close to getting an outright majority at Holyrood - some projections say they might actually achieve it.

That's how we do things in a stable democracy. We turn over the issues, we examine the pros and cons, we don't quickly change our minds but we as a people are not closed to it and we are well able to do it when it is warranted.

We do not need to import unstable, European methods for rigging elections so the minority pressure group of the hour gets to call the tune or else bring down the government.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

you do realise scotland isnt using FPTP now right?

Your blinkered view and faith in FPTP is scary, you really dont understand the true nature of the beast. Yes safe seats will ocassionaly change it doesnt change the fact tho that votes above the winning margin are wasted and votes for the loser are wasted. Leading to a result that isnt proportional to the votes cast, the 2010 election showed this greatly when the lib dems had almost as much votes as labour but got way less seats.

http://www.yorkforvotingreform.org.uk/fair.htm

check the bottom graph on that page. In 2010 the lib dems needed almost 3 times as many votes to win a seat than the 2 main parties. Yet you posting rubbish saying every vote is equal.

Incidently I think elections shouldnt have any leaflet posting, the only campaigning should be candidates knocking on doors speaking to voters personally, the only tv coverage should be live debates.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

About 1/2 the seats are allocated using FPTP and overnight a lot of 'safe' seats have changed from Red to Yellow against all expectations.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I never said i get more then one vote i said that my one vote could be counted more then once that is how it was explained by numerous people on numerous programs dealing with AV and i personally find that unfair and therefore oppose AV.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Thinking of an election as a system that just votes in individual leaders for constituences vs as a system that elects parties to run the country it does a poor job. I think this is how me and chris are looking at it differently.

Also think of the costs saved with campaigns with no tv adverts, no printed press adverts and no leaflets. This reduces dependencies from parties to rich individuals who fund campaigns and increases the relation between the voter and their candidates as they are forced to knock on more doors.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

I was writing newspaper features on the system used in Scotland and Wales before the devolution referendums were held so yes, I know what manner of election I have just participated in and I'm pretty confident I have a better grasp of the precise calculations used to make the results proportional than most bystanders. ;)

The really remarkable thing about the results in Scotland today is the number of constituency seats they have swiped, mostly off Labour in supposedly safe labour areas like Glasgow.

I assure you, I do. Please don't assume that the only people who disagree with you are the ones that don't understand. Some people - I believe we are about to discover a majority of people - believe that whatever its flaws, FPTP's benefits are ultimately of greater value.

No, the Lib Dems did not need three times as many votes to win a seat. For each seat won, only the votes within that constituency counted. The votes from elsewhere in the country did not contribute and were not 'needed'.

This is one of the problems with the pro-PR argument: in order to make its argument it has to describe British parliamentary elections in terms other than what they actually are. When you vote at a General Election you do not vote in a national referendum on which Party you want to win. You vote for your local representative to the Commons.

The pro-PR argument relies on the view that the Party make-up of the chamber is ultimately the most important thing (even STV, the ERS's preferred method, ultimately is about balancing representation of Parties rather than assuring that each area of the country has a locally accountable representative).

I fundamentally disagree with the view that a homogenized Commons chamber made up of blocs of different colours is the prsim through which we should view our election process. I acknowledge that this is pretty much where we have got to in our present political life, and I acknowledge that this feeds the argument in favour of adopting an electoral system better matched to that situation.

But I still contend that those who seek change would do better to engage with the political process and seek to support independently-minded candidates rather than campaigning for an electoral system that would merely serve to lock the worst aspects of the anonymous party machine into our political life forever.

I would like to have been doorstepped during this election, but as I live in a fairly remote location I'm not surprised that all I got was leaflets, and I'd rather have leaflets than nothing.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Which, of course, is exactly the same under FPTP. The difference being that, should there be no clear - majority - winner, at least with AV you end up with someone who you can at least tolerate rather than you one vote being completely wasted.

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

Chris you are niave sorry to say.

How does a referendum which has no PR option prove that people dont want PR?

The lib dems had a 3rd of the seats they would have got under a fair voting system, that is a fact. You can merry gand round this all you want, likewise independents also faired poorly in terms of seats to votes. You simply cannot understand the concept that votes are locking into per area but bring a party into national power. There is nothing fair about disregarding millions of votes that can manipulate the result of who runs the country, this is about more than electing someone to represet in parliament as it decides which party runs the country.

eg.

Area A has 120k votes cast for party A and 20k votes cast for PArty B, Party A gets one seat for 120k votes.
Area B has 19k votes for Party B and 18k votes for party A, Party B gets the seat.

In this example the 19k voters in Area B have a bigger voting power than the 20k voters in Area A. the 99k or so voters in Area A are votes essentially thrown away as majority already achieved and has no account on other seats. It is quite possible for a party to get in power under FPTP with less votes than a losing party.

Leaflets allow people to lie and not be questioned back about those lies, and they cost money, that money has to come from rich individuals or in labours case unions, these people then have too much influence over govenrment policy should that party win, and you want that?

Re: To AV, or not to AV?
 

But your example would never happen, as there are not constituencies of those extremes (140k and 39k) - the range (at the moment) is 61k to 86k....

You are also comparing apples with housebricks, when you, on one hand, use constituency figures to support your argument, and then use national voting figures to also support it.

We vote for a local representative to a national parliament - if you want to parliament to reflect the national voting figures, we would need to completely change the way we select and vote our governments (and local and area councils, to ensure democratic evenhandedness).