[Tezcatlipoca]

Australia has been using AV for ages:

"Does the Alternative Vote Bring Tyranny to Australia?

Preferential voting in Australia

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So why only AV as a choice?

Because it is the *only* choice which the Tories would allow. Neither they nor Labour are in favour of actual PR for the House of Commons.

Originally Posted by Paul M

AV seems a bit complicated.

How is writing "1", "2", & "3" on your ballot paper complicated?

It may have a bit more to it than simply marking a single "X", but it's certainly less complicated than the proper Proportional Representation (PR) systems already used in other parts of the the UK. 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.

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why change a system that seems to have worked for 100's years ?

Because AV is meant to be fairer. No more wasted votes. No more tactical voting. No more MPs elected with the support of less than 50% of their constituents.

Originally Posted by martyh

Who decided we needed a reform on the voting system anyway ?,it wouldn't have been the libdems would it because the way i see it AV is the only way they ever retain any power .
The real problem isn't the system we use it's the apathy of the voters .For the most part we see any party in power the same as the last one so don't see the point

The main Lib Dem requirement for entering into a Coalition was that there would be a referendum on electoral reform. The preferred system of the Lib Dems is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) (already used in N. Ireland & Scotland, as mentioned above), however this would never have been accepted by the Tories or Labour, so AV was given as a compromise. It is not as fair or proportional as STV, but it is still meant to be fairer than FPTP.

Labour was also in favour of electoral reform, and its 2010 General Election Manifesto promised a referendum on AV, just as we have ended up with with the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition.

So, if Labour had won last year, we would *still* be having a referendum, with its associated costs. [Costs which, btw, aren't at all as high as the No campaign claims: linky linky).

Originally Posted by techguyone

If the future is coalition after coalition with AV like the bunch we currently have in, you'll end up with even less people voting than now (and God knows that bad enough already)

Would the Alternative Vote have changed history?

If AV had been used in previous general elections would it have changed the result?

This graphic illustrates how the results of the last six general elections might have looked had the 'alternative vote' system been in place. The overall outcome of the contests would not have changed, but the Liberal Democrats would have gained the most seats and the scale of the Conservative defeat in 1997 would have been much greater, the research suggests.

Originally Posted by techguyone

See how well the Lib Dems do in the next few elections, I'll eat my hat if they're not 'punished' and lose significant ground they've made in recent years - as a direct result of forming the Coalition with the Conservatives./

I have no doubt of that. I fully expect the Lib Dems to get a complete pasting at the next elections.