Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Any thoughts? I'm not necessarily asking for which way you could / would / will / wont vote, more for your views on the pros and cons of the system.

Could be good as it gives a wider picture of what the whole country wants, though is it wise to spend the cash on this while there's so many cuts being made elsewhere?

Well, I'm not sure you can call a referendum to determine the future of the political system of the country a waste of money.

The Liberal Democrats have abandoned all morals and ideals to get to this point. If they manage to reform the system, they have a chance of getting into government on their own merits in the future. 'Why?', I hear you ask. It's simple really.

*pulls out blackboard*

In the last general election, the Conservatives won 47% of the seats, Labour 40%, and the Lib Dems a mere 8%. Yet what is interesting to note, is that whilst 29% of the population voted Labour, 23% voted Lib Dem. That means that due to the first past the post system, and the fact that Labour redrew all their constituencies to give themselves more seats, that difference of 6% is worth 32 seats apparently. Which is mildly ridiculous.

However, if the Lib Dems can reform the system, so that the mode of choosing an mp is directly related to the percentage of votes gained, the number of seats they hold will spring up ridiculously. Not just that, they'll see a boost from tories who don't want to put labour as their second choice, and labour who don't want to put tories as their second choice.

In other words, they'll have a real stab at becoming a constant major player in British politics.

This is why they've thrown everything away in this coalition:- to try and get this change through. The tories don't want it, it weakens their hold over the coalition if the lib dems win. Labour doesn't want it, they'll see hordes of labour voters defecting to the lib dems. The only ones who stand to gain are the Liberal Democrats.

I'm going to vote No. I agree with the reasoning that AV is fairer and makes politicians work harder for votes etc, etc but this country has evolved a system that is based on one man, one vote. No one person has or should have any more voting power than any other person. I worry that AV, if adopted, will create too many hung parliaments and in turn, produce government by compromise. Coalition government is traditionally weak and ineffective, at least here in the UK.

I think if we in the UK generally wanted our voting system to be fairer, then we should concentrate on trying to get voter turn out higher, rather than thinking of ways to rig the voting system. I think we should do as Australia and make voting mandatory. If everyone voted, then there would be less reason to claim that the majority hasn't spoken. Just because your vote is supposedly 'wasted' because your choice didn't win is not necessarily a bad thing - you are still exercising choice and registering a preference.

In the last general election, the Conservatives won 47% of the seats, Labour 40%, and the Lib Dems a mere 8%. Yet what is interesting to note, is that whilst 29% of the population voted Labour, 23% voted Lib Dem. That means that due to the first past the post system, and the fact that Labour redrew all their constituencies to give themselves more seats, that difference of 6% is worth 32 seats apparently. Which is mildly ridiculous.

I believe we called that 'Jerrymandering' in Northern Ireland.
I think AV would be better. Unfortunately I'm out of the country and not able to postal vote :(

The thing is, under AV your vote is still wasted if you vote for a fringe party - it ends up going towards your 2nd, 3rd or even 4th choice candidate. Either way, you're not going to see the party you really wanted to vote for in power, so what's the point?

I'll be voting 'No'.

Voting can't be lots fairer without proportional representation, which AV isn't.

The reason that AV is being proposed now is (A) it is already widely used and well understood in the UK, and (B) it's the best move towards proportional representation that the Lib-Dems could get on the agenda.

AV isn't really very different to single vote. For example, if you want, you can just vote 1 for your favoured candidate and ignore all the others. Or vote for your favourite three.

I suspect in most cases people would vote tactically -- 1 for your man, 2 for the anti-your-man candidate most likely to win and 3 for the overall least offensive candidate. AV will work much better for that.

I'm torn, but leaning towards No. I'm not really sure I want to vote on it, as no matter what happens in the referendum, a party will get into power using AV if yes or FPTP if no and just do the same thing as other parties, abandon all the attention-grabbing policies that got them their support and bugger the country over sideways in their attempt to "improve" it.

In a time where we're voting for which party is going to feth up the least amount of stuff, does the system we do it in really matter? Either way, something that aint broke is gunna get 'fixed' by the next party/coalition.

Ah well said KK.

Sorry to be lazy but I am not quite seeing the differance betwee AV and Proportional reprrsentation. Can anyone enlighten me?

At the moment I am in the no camp as PR was used in the Student Union GenSec election that I can second on (out of 5 or 6 since you ask).

They voted for the pretty girl and not the rugger thug! BOOOOO!

AV is a kind of halfway house between FPTP and true PR, in that the constituency model is still kept and the concept of having an MP who is elected and is responsible for a particular area is kept.

With true PR, constituencies are scrapped and everyone just votes for the party they want to see in power. Votes are tallied nationwide and cameral seats assigned proportionally based on share of the vote.

Although I have to stress, there are literally thousands of different models of PR. There isn't really any 'one' such thing as Proportional Representation.

I think it's a bad idea. Even John Humphrys misunderstood how AV works and argued with Cameron even though he was wrong.

The only party that will really benefit from AV is Liberal Democrats, and I don't think anyone in Higher Education in GB trusts them anymore.

Av won't result in hung parliments any more than our current system. If you look at the results for the past elections the current election would be the only hung parliment under AV. Not that having a hung parliment is bad, most european countries have hung parliemts regularly- I don't understand why everyone is so against them, they encourage more middle of the road politics.

It doesn't really give people more power, your vote is either your first, secord or third. It just stops wasted votes when people vote for parties that have no chance of getting in and is a much fairer way to decide between close parties.

The government keeps telling us how awful it is but they themselves use it for voting within their party. No party in power wants it as it makes it harder for them.

Forcing people to vote is a bad idea unless you give people the option to vote against all parties. In this respect our current system is badly failing. Its lumping people who don't like any parties in with people who can't be bothered to vote.

4M2A wrote:Av won't result in hung parliments any more than our current system. If you look at the results for the past elections the current election would be the only hung parliment under AV.

That's not really a fair comparison - you can't look at past election results and try and say how AV would/wouldn't have affected them because the very nature of the political system affects the way that people vote. If we have an AV system in place, people are much more likely to vote for their actual preference rather than tactically voting as happens a fair degree under FPTP.

4M2A wrote: Not that having a hung parliment is bad, most european countries have hung parliaments regularly- I don't understand why everyone is so against them, they encourage more middle of the road politics.

That's because most European countries' political systems are much more geared to work with coalition rule. Our system isn't particularly suited to it. We have a different style of politica in the UK, largely due to the age and history of our systems, checks and balances. The UK system is adversarial and is designed to provoke reaction and debate rather than agreement. Other European countries don't compare because they have either only recently (historically speaking) adopted democracy (like Spain or Romania) or have undergone significant political upheaval (like Germany)

4M2A wrote: It doesn't really give people more power, your vote is either your first, secord or third. It just stops wasted votes when people vote for parties that have no chance of getting in and is a much fairer way to decide between close parties.

The government keeps telling us how awful it is but they themselves use it for voting within their party. No party in power wants it as it makes it harder for them.

Forcing people to vote is a bad idea unless you give people the option to vote against all parties. In this respect our current system is badly failing. Its lumping people who don't like any parties in with people who can't be bothered to vote.

The only party that really wants AV are the Lib Dems - precisely because it is really the only way they will ever get into power. Rigging the voting system because you can't win isn't really a good recommendation for change, I feel.

It doesn't really matter what parties benefit it is still a benefit with us. A system where a party with far less than 50% of the votes can win really doesn't work.

While it's not as good as proportional representation it still gives a result which fits more people votes. It isn't going to put parties that are far behind in power as it only comes into action when two parties are drawing.

filbert wrote:AV is a kind of halfway house between FPTP and true PR, in that the constituency model is still kept and the concept of having an MP who is elected and is responsible for a particular area is kept.

With true PR, constituencies are scrapped and everyone just votes for the party they want to see in power. Votes are tallied nationwide and cameral seats assigned proportionally based on share of the vote.

Although I have to stress, there are literally thousands of different models of PR. There isn't really any 'one' such thing as Proportional Representation.

There is a form of PR used in Japan in which there are direct elections for constituencies, and a secondary list from which MPs are appointed on the basis of PR voting.

I'm in favour of voting systems that allow a greater diversity of viewpoints in parliment, but I won't be voting as I don't know enough about the issues and I don't have the time to look into it at the moment.

I'll be voting yes. My reasons/bits worth:

I don't believe Lib Dems are the only party who want it, they're just the main one in the news.

I would usually vote green. however, between working in HE (bearing in mind Lim Dems 'Promises - that's a loose word) and the fact Green are very unlikly to win a general election, I voted Lib Dem so not to 'waste' my vote. I also know several others (probably in the 100s) who did the same (not all switching from green mind you). With AV I would be able to vote Green as my preference, and then still be able to give a 2nd choice if i wish. Here, is however the only point i agree with form the No Campaign. With AV the party with fewest votes is knocked out first. This means that no party is likly to win outright, but the least favourite parties will swing the election. I disagree with the phrasing that the least popular parties 2nd preference will decide the elction however. They won't. The election on the whole is still decided by 1st preferences. The big 3 will still remain the 'big 3' but will need to appeal to more voters to get those 2nd choices. This brings me in a circle back to why I am voting yes. If parties are working harder to please more people then they are being more representative of the poulation (those who vote at least). This is why we elect them in the first place. To run the country in a way that represents the majority views.

To top it off the thing that's overwhelmingly confirmed my vote yes, is that I'm disgusted with the no campaign itself. Yes there's tactical campainging from both sides, but I find the no cmapaign to be overpersuasive rather than open and honest. To me I feel it's important for a governament to be honest with the population. Yes it goes out of the window during elections because they all want to get in and have the 'power'. For example some of the things that have wound me up:

they keep banging on about how much it will cost, yet don't at any point in flyers etc. i've been given explain how much the current system costs.

They use an AV system to elect their own memebers as already said - hipocrasy there

They state very clearly in my fl;yer that only 3? countries in the world use av, and two of them want to stop. Again no indication as to how many may be considering moving to it.

I know the counter argument to all the above is 'you're intelegant, you can assume by the yes campaign not countering that these points are correct' but i feel this is unfair on the (cringing as I type) 'uneducated' who will take these things at face value.

To top it off, I drove past a bill baord on saturday with a list of cuts. I thought it was an old general election add, then saw the tag line. 'Don't make things worse, vote no'. AV has nothing what-so-ever to do with many of the cuts. This in my opinion is pure scaremongering to win a few votes. For me any goverment who feels it's ok to sink to using tactics like this deserves to loose the vote on principle.

Rant over.

But to all those in the UK - even if you disagree with all this, or don't know which way to vote, at least turn up and 'vote' by spoiling your paper. Make a point of turning out and doing something. We can't vote against anyone but you can still make yourself heard.

covenant84 wrote:
they keep banging on about how much it will cost, yet don't at any point in flyers etc. i've been given explain how much the current system costs.

The one thing I don't understand is how it will cost more than the current system, at least in terms of the amounts the No Campain claim. How hard is it after counting the votes for the first time, as is done currently under first past the post, to have the same people easily and quickly just keep a total from the first round-then count for a second time the redistributed votes adding them to the total and so forth.

Surely even politicians can't be so idiotic as to think that will cause a massive increase in expenditure. Sure it will take slightly longer to count the votes and announce the results. So if anyone can explain this to me then I'd be interested to hear.

Oh, I'll be voting 'yes' tomorrow. Partially as I am/was a Lib-dem supporter (and yet ironically am a student) and also as even a step forward to this system is better than no step forwards atall.

I actually wonder if referenda are right for complicated issues like this- seems like the answer most of us should give is "I have no idea and no interest" not yes or no.

Ketara wrote:However, if the Lib Dems can reform the system, so that the mode of choosing an mp is directly related to the percentage of votes gained, the number of seats they hold will spring up ridiculously. Not just that, they'll see a boost from tories who don't want to put labour as their second choice, and labour who don't want to put tories as their second choice.

If it was a "true" PR system, this would be true and I'd vote "yes", as it's AV this isn't true.

Personally, I won't vote for AV. Under FptP if I want to vote tactically (ie against someone) I have to sacrifice my vote for my ideal candidate. Under AV I get to have my cake and eat it. I don't believe in tactical voting (and don't) - an election should be about voting for someone and not against someone else IMO - so I don't want to vote for a more broken system.

A big NO from me.

Voting is about a proactive choice, its supposed to be who do you want to run the country, not who do you not want. When a bill is put to parliament the MP's have to vote for or against, when an opinion is aired it is a good or a bad one. You dont really get the chance to have multiple outcomes. Democracy is an extension of that power wielding, and should favour those who make pro-active decisions. A person is in power because more people put them as first choice candidate, it doesn't matter too much how many people put them as last choice, unless they combine to make a proactive choice for someone else. AV leads to people being elected by default on the lack of merits of other candidates rather than their own. This can of course still happen, under 'tactical voting', but a tactical vote is still a proactive vote, someone found reason to consider a third party choice not the one they want and not the one that don't want. AV however forces this wishy-washiness on everyone.

Politics is bad enough without the winning party being the one who makes the least waves and sits on the fence the most, which will what you will need to be. Under Av the winning candidate is the one who can be pinned down the least, because it wont matter how many people like their policies as much as how many people are not disturbed by them. No choice in politics fails to upset someone, every choice creates winners and losers, the losers remember, the winners often forget. Under AV existing candidates will be afraid to do anything unless supported by a massed spin drive, again we have that already but not to the same extent.

case in points, ever though why Lib Dems benefit most from AV? The reason is simple, most people have them as a second choice not because they are in the middle between left or right, that has relatively little effect, it is mainly because they havent had enough power to piss anyone off. Too many people say no-Tory or no-Labour, and while such disgruntlement is understandable, it is no way to base a democratic mandate. One man/person, one vote. Make choice, wield your measure of power alloted to you in the mandate.

A big Yes from me.

Largely to wind Cameron up, though I really have no problem with the way AV works and anything the "No" camp have come up with against is just nonsense or not even a reason at all. For example... "Only Australia, Fiji and Papa New Guinea use it" is a really rubbish and quite childish argument as it doesn't tell you why the system is bad. Plus, I don't like being told that something is complicated when it's actually quite simple (if take a moment to absorb how it works), which is basically them stating that the electorate are stupid.

Regardless, the "No" vote will win.

filbert wrote:I'm going to vote No. I agree with the reasoning that AV is fairer and makes politicians work harder for votes etc, etc but this country has evolved a system that is based on one man, one vote. No one person has or should have any more voting power than any other person

You should check out how AV works, it does not alter that. It's a pretty interesting system and it will not change one man, one vote, no matter what the Torygraph or Daily Mail say. The Powers That Be have worked very, very hard to ensure that the population are dramatically misinformed about AV.

Cat based (biased) information film.

People forget that if a candidate gets over 50% of the votes, there is no recount, they win. Hopefully it will force people to actually go out and vote, so therefore stop the re-assigning of the votes.

Adelynn wrote:The Powers That Be have worked very, very hard to ensure that the population are dramatically misinformed about AV.

Agreed. What really hacks me off is that the Conservatives refused to have a referendum on PR, forcing a compromise on AV. They then used the fact that it is a compromise that nobody really wants as a cornerstone of the No campaign. It stinks. We should have had a referendum on PR as most people think FPTP is broken but don't think AV is a solution. However, Conservatives will insist that a landslide win for the No vote (that will no doubt happen) shows public faith in FPTP.

Adelynn wrote:

filbert wrote:I'm going to vote No. I agree with the reasoning that AV is fairer and makes politicians work harder for votes etc, etc but this country has evolved a system that is based on one man, one vote. No one person has or should have any more voting power than any other person

You should check out how AV works, it does not alter that. It's a pretty interesting system and it will not change one man, one vote, no matter what the Torygraph or Daily Mail say. The Powers That Be have worked very, very hard to ensure that the population are dramatically misinformed about AV.

I understand how AV works - I studied Politics at A level and at Uni. There is just as much scaremongering and confusion floating around from the Yes campaign without having to paint pictures of vast Machiavellian conspiracies.

At the end of the day, the electorate will have to do the same thing that they always do when they vote today - ignore the propaganda from both sides and vote on the issue based on their understanding of it. And I think that will mean the Yes campaign will lose, partly for the reasons Flashman illustrates above and partly because AV (without sounding too patronising) is a bit too complicated for the average Joe to come to grips with.

Orlanth wrote: One man/person, one vote.

AV is still one vote, just by preference. No-one actually wants their vote to be recounted, that means they're not getting their preferred choice, but they still have a voice in who gets elected, rather than the current 'mu candidate didn't win outright, so my vote is effectivly ignored'.

Adelynn wrote: The Powers That Be have worked very, very hard to ensure that the population are dramatically misinformed about AV.

I agree. There's too much scare-mongering about how complicated it is. What's so difficult about listing a 1,2,3? We're not that stupid

Flashman wrote:Agreed. What really hacks me off is that the Conservatives refused to have a referendum on PR, forcing a compromise on AV. They then used the fact that it is a compromise that nobody really wants as a cornerstone of the No campaign. It stinks. We should have had a referendum on PR as most people think FPTP is broken but don't think AV is a solution. However, Conservatives will insist that a landslide win for the No vote (that will no doubt happen) shows public faith in FPTP.

filbert wrote:At the end of the day, the electorate will have to do the same thing that they always do when they vote today - ignore the propaganda from both sides and vote on the issue based on their understanding of it.

This is how it should work. What peevs me off is where both cmapaigns use arguments not designed to improve our understanding of the system to make our own informed decisions, but when they use c#@p arguments that have little relation to the issue. Who cares if only 3 countries have it? That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Only a small proportion of the worlds population have 'freedom of speech'. Does this mean that's also bad?

If any politicians are reading this - stop trying to persuade us, educate us to make our own descions. That's what we elect you for!

I'll be voting yes. Don't really see what all the fuss is about. Seems pretty fair to me.

covenant84 wrote:What's so difficult about listing a 1,2,3? We're not that stupid

There are people who read the Daily Mail and Telegraph and think they are non-fiction, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on the stupidity point.

Australia uses it... and to be honest I'd prefer that we used the first past the post system.

Simply because the (to be totally blunt) insufferably patheticly incompetent Labor party is propped up in a swathe of seats by the Greens (or the 'Watermelons', green environmentalists on the outside and crazy loony leftoid commies on the inside)

Nationally and in some states you have to preference every candidate to make your vote count.

Some state like mine can just put a 1 or mark every box, which is better because protest votes become that, rather than a flow back to the people they were going to vote for anyway.