AV or not ?

Why does it annoy you?
The point (as made to me and not one I necessarily agree with) is that no matter which party is in power, the real power lies elsewhere. Therefore taking part in elections is a minority sport.

I think there is a good argument for compulsory voting (mind you, the bigotry in Australian politics puts me off - I strongly suspect things would get a lot more bigoted in the UK if most people voted) but above all, I would like a 'None of the above' option so we could register our disillusionment.

On the subject of 'you didn't vote so don't complain' - I know a couple of people who are intensely politically engaged, very bright, NOT nutters and resolutely do not vote: on the basis that when you realise whose agenda the government is furthering, you see there is no point. The more I read about eg the City of London Corporation, the more inclined I am to agree. (But I can't not vote.)

Giddy and others, just out of interest and as we're talking about Australia a lot, what do we all think of compulsory voting? I'm very torn.

Agree that it's sad nad worrying that so many people don't seem to care/know. It always seems the way in politics. But given how little most people do care about these things generally, it seems a bit odd to say :

'but only 37% supporting AV is quite a small number considering they've had it for 90 years so are more informed of it's limits and it's faults so their perception of it is based on seeing it in practice not just in theory'

Apart from the fact that this in one poll, to assume that all these people have studied the issues carefully based on 90 years of experience is a bit much really.

Also this:
The fact also remains in Australia - they have AV BUT where giving a second choice is optional not compulsory only 30% bother to give a second choice vote. In effect therefore Australians vote as if they have FPTP not AV whenever they can'

So this 30% means something but the other 37% mentioned doesn't

Giddy: 57% is hardly resounding though and it followed a confusing election result. But, more importantly, the notion of 'going back' to FPTP is just crazy as it first came into operation in Australia in 1918/1919. There has been a campaign for PR in Australia but not for FPTP.

I get that AV is not much better than FPTP. But it is marginally more democratic and while I don't see any kind of automatic link to PR, I do think that a NO vote would put the PR campaign back decades.

When you are hovering over the ballot box, remember who is backing who, and why: Tories, big business, tax avoiders, career politicians and the BNP - No.

Grassroots, democracy campaigners and ordinary folk= Yes

Polls virtually 50:50 despite the huge dollars pumped in by the No campaign to keep things as they are. Vested interests people, Vested interests

Bullet Points = controlling? hahahaha Nice to know the NO campaign are full of the paranoid fear filed freaks I thought it was! I sigh because you just really don't get it, and probably never will because you can't move from where you thought you ought to be no matter how good the evidence.

By 'This' I mean AV. Obviously.

Don't fucking at me, you patronising arse

I WANT change, but if there is an extra cost to PR then that is fine (IMO). This may not cost extra on paper, but in extra time, extra explanation, these things cost money and I think it's a huge waste of time.

STOP being so accusatory, read what people are saying, and stop acting like a bully.

and don't fucking bullet point your posts. it makes you look like a controlling tit!

1. We have info about how to vote in every election - the cost is the same
2. Campaigning -0 Yes is paid by donation, work largely volunteers, No paid for by big business and murdoch backers - not tax (apart from business supporters of No probably getting breaks from DC for supporting)
3. Proportional Representation would be expensive - different parliament, more reps, no constituency link, longer decisions.. make your mind up and stop being so stupidly inconsistent - PR is expensive AV isn't - your issue isn't cost at all its a smoke screen.
4. You don't want any change, you don't want any cost, but you weirdly pretend to want a more expensive, more drastic change that will produce results you say you don't want? You shoudl work for the No campaign with all that BS and inconsistency :)

What are you trying to say missingfriends?

I think if you stand next to Cameron you can smell the stench of tax dodging, from him, from his cronies, from his wife, his pals .

Cost? Increased explanation on the 'way it works', extra administration, extra campaigning to make people think it's the way to go , did I mention extra explanation?
(people I know who are very politically active have NO bloody idea how AV will work, it's a bit scary... they're clever people too!)

I don't like FPTP, I'd rather have Prop Rep, and this is a crappy half-arsed 'gesture' by the tories to appease the Lib Dems (and wasn't Clegg against AV until v recently??)

If we're changing the way we vote then I don't want this half-arsed waste of time.

Could you explain how it will cost a fortune? including David Cameron no-one thinks it will cost more except the No leaflet makers - DC has agreed that AV will cost no more. Stop just repeating campaign lies - that is what got me angry enough to research all this so I am sure its not productive to do that. that £250 Million is just complete bollocks fabrication

NO for me. I think it's overly complicated, will cost a fortune and may dissuade people from voting.

'the Herald has installed massive pillars at its new Pyrmont office depicting a huge etched image of the News Corporation chief' go figure...

we know who's being the No campaign, the same people who like reduced public services, who oppose the minimum wage, love keeping people in peverty whilst they stay wealthy, who love bankers' bonuses and who want businesses to pay even less tax than they do already.

Shame on you,....