AV or not ?

No, gosh no.

The most active smaller parties in the UK are the BNP, UKIP and the Greens. The most likely to be eliminated in earlier rounds.

Greens fair enough, but AV means the second and third choices of BNP and UKIP voters, whose candidates will be eliminated, will have greater weight. Their views will count again, and maybe again.

I accept they'll probably go to the Tories, and I'd want the Tories to win. But I don't want extreme right-wingers to have any more influence than they do at the moment.

Their vote can't be counted more than once, because their only actual vote is their second preference (or their third, or whichever one gets the winning candidate elected). What you refer to as their "first vote", isn't a vote but a preference. The vote is actually cast when the winning candidate makes the grade. That's not dressing it up, it's what happens.

The campaign literature won't be more full of tough immigration policies, because that would put off the centrist swing voters/anger the membership without gaining BNP voters, who are much more likely to say "BNP and sod the rest of them" i.e. not put down any other preferences. It would be a stupid strategy.

With UKIP - yes, I think there would be pandering to UKIP by the Tories, but it's likely that there would be less of it than at the moment, not more, since all they'll want to do is ensure that UKIP voters put the Tories second - not too difficult - whereas now they're trying to ensure that UKIP voters put the Tories first.

But the BNP rarely has enough votes to be 'valuable' to anyone. In our system, it is much more likely that either the Tories or Labour will be cultivating Lib Dem or Green votes; UKIK and then BNP would be some way behind in pretty much all seats.

When you say "get another chance," you make it sound as if they get two chances. But that's not true, as this article explains:

this article explains.

"It is a mistake to regard this as voting a second time, and a mistake to say that this preference is worth more than anyone else's preference. At this stage no votes can been deemed to have been cast, except in the sense that voters have completed their ballot papers. Examining the preferences is a preliminary process to the final casting of the votes. The first preferences of voters for the bottom candidate are disregarded, not cast. They play no part in the final decision."

I understand that you're saying that the very fact they're an extremist voter makes their opinions dodgy, even if they vote for a mainstream party. However, if a BNP voter votes in effect for a mainstream party (as they are doing in having their second or third preference counted and their first, for the BNP, dismissed) then what is bad about that? They've voted for a mainstream party, good! Or are we supposed to screen all mainstream party voters to see whether they're not really covert BNP supporters who just decided to vote mainstream?

The argument that mainstream parties will court small extremist parties' votes only holds water, I think, in a system like that used for the Australian general elections where you have to list preferences - and even there, not that much water.

Why, in the UK, would parties risk putting off their mainstream voters by coming out with things designed to appeal to the BNP? Let's face it, even the Tories' current level of anti-immigration rhetoric hardly manages to charm the BNP voters, and if the Tories were to go significantly further right on this issue they would lose the more centrist swing voters - indeed, the sort of people who ARE likely to use preferences. So why spend that political capital courting the BNP voters - who AREN'T likely to use preferences? It would be not just a wasted effort, but counterproductive.

Under AV, extreme parties CANNOT get in. The elected party has to get 50% support and there is no way an extreme party would get that.

BUT under FPTP extreme parties CAN get in. In an election with 10 candidates it would be possible for the BNP to get in with 15% as the mainstream vote gets split 10 ways.

Extreme parties are not pandered to in Australia. OTOT, in Northern Ireland, there has been room for smaller parties like Alliance and even the Women's Party some years ago. Both systems are different forms of AV from what is being proposed here but neither has been over run by fascists. Obviously I hate the BNP, but being democratic means if we want to make room for the Greens, Socialist Labour and other smaller parties, we have be prepared to accept some of the nasty stuff that comes along.

Why would they have to be equally happy with all of them? Does it matter if they like their second choice a bit less - somewhat less - than their first?

jennie60 is right, I think.

We don't know that the introduction of AV will definitely lead to STV at some point. Nor do we know that a rejection of AV will definitely close the door on STV.

But it is arguably more likely that a vote for AV will lead to STV at some point than a vote against AV will.

Giddy - I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on people's third choices and how much they like them, rather than their second choices. In general, I think you're coming at this from the point of view of someone who only has one clear favourite - which I can understand - but many people don't have such a clear-cut favourite, and spend time deciding how to vote. The good thing about AV is that it caters for both types of person - those who want to vote for one clear favourite and those who want to list in order of preference.

That is not a stupid argument at all, considering the the time we have taken to get a referendum at all on the change in the voting system.FPTP suits
the main parties fine and if the NO campaign wins,PR(never the sexiest issue around) will be off the agenda for the forseeable future.

FPTP can be seen as an extension of the feudal system when the barons sent men and money to support the king.The 1832 electoral reform act
just enshrined the idea that local constituences sent representatives to govenment.In the first general election after the 1832 act the whigs and tories gained 95% of the vote between them, so FPTP worked fine in a two party system in the 19th century but not in a multiparty fully enfranchised system in the 21st century.

First past the post, might as well give up the ghost
First past the post, the people's votes are toast
First past the post, pack everything up and head for the coast

Alternative vote, no more moats
Alternative vote, that'll get their goat
Alternative vote, they won't get their oats
Alternative vote, they'll have to get their coat,
Alternative vote, don't vote by rote
Alternative vote, don't miss the boat
Alternative vote, make them take note

AV, vote free, yippee

I love Dan Snow's explanation of AV - neat...

has no-one noticed that under first past the post, tories often make dog whistle appeals to the parties to the right of them - BNP and UKIP are already more targetted than othr non-conservative voters. Ref cameron's recent 'immigration is too much and we need to sort it out' speech - a definite BNP appeal

Can I say again that because I have decided to vote yes doesn't mean that I think PR will follow automatically. But I do think that PR is democratic and I am voting yes so that the argument that people couldn't even agree on AV so why bother talking about PR can't be raised. Yes, I know it's a stupid argument, but I don't want it to be available. That's all.

I don't think so either Proles and I don't think it would necessarily 'send a message' , but at least it won't put back the PR case altogther as a no would.

Proles I asked because I do think PR is a more democratic system than FPTP and AV. I will vote yes, not because I think it will somehow lead automatically or even quickly to PR, but because I think if it's a no vote PR will be dead in the water, probably for decades at least.

Giddy: Australia has a three party system but the National Party is in more or less permanent coaltion with the Liberal Party. Any Liberal government is in fact a coalition government.

An absolute no from me. I know what it means and what the consequences will be and I don't personally want it. It won't make a difference where I live anyway, but I don't feel it's the right system by any stretch of the imagination.