so, no threads about how AV has been resoundingly rejected then?

Polly Toynbee is spot on over her support for AV. All credit to her and the Guardian for their support of the people on this issue.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/14/vote-yes-for-av

Good I'm glad to hear that the Guardian and Polly Toynbee were pro-AV. That has restored some of my faith in them, after the Guardian "enthusiastically" backed Nick Clegg for the election.

Claig, I'm not sure what your issue with the Guardian is but it was very firmly pro-AV, as (I think) was Polly Toynbee.

Giddypickle I have a degree in Politics and studied electoral systems so I like to think I know a little more about this topic than I have read in the press over the last 4 months. I voted yes, not because AV is a good system per se but because in my view it is better than FPTP.

Bankers will get their bonuses, fat cats will prosper, the people will lose their jobs and homes, students will be in debt to their eyeballs and the party wonks will be happy that FPTP will remain and the people voted 'No to AV'. The BBC will show more dancing and cookery programmes and everything will carry on as normal.

Who knows, a more representative government might even control the bankers? That's what the people want, the ones being laid off and losing their homes due to the disaster that the bankers gave us. If they had a government that listened to their voice, then that is what the government would do. But, instead , we'll get the same old, same old, and the politicos will tell us that they promise to spend more on schools and hospitals, so everything's OK and no need to change the voting system.

'I know a lot of people who as it happens did not need the public media to inform them. I know people with degrees in politics, people who did Government and Politics at A Level and who have an active interest in the subject, people who studied history focusing on constitutional reforms, people whose job entails keeping up to date with political issues... basically people who even without vast media intervention know an awful lot about AV (and AV + and PR in all its various guises and every other system both enacted and hypothetical).'

I'm not on about them - the politicos and the party activists and the party members and the party bigwigs. I'm on about the ordinary people - Mrs Jones from number 22 - who gets shafted by the politicos every time. All the degree educated politics graduates and Guardian journalists don't have the same interests as the ordinary people. It was for the benefit of the people that the vote had to be offered, and the people's media should have made sure that the ordinary people were informed and could see through the agenda of the politics graduates and party wonks.

We all know that AV is crap, but it is a start on teh road to PR, and that is not crap. That offers the people the chance of having their voice heard. That will mean that the politicos won't be able to call people like Mrs. Duffy a bigot and ignore issues that the public care about. That might mean that we get a more representative government that has to take the students' concerns into consideration.

You are making some sweeping statements here Claig. Most people didn't really care, and those who did were more likely to want change?? Really? So all those people who voted no obviousy gave no thought at all to their vote? You seem to be just completely ignoring the wishes of anyone who doesn't agree with you, and coming up with pretty flaky reasons why their opinion isn't valid.

Good point MerylStrop. It was a very important vote, but it didn't receive the attention it deserved. It will be another 30 years before it comes round again.

Can you imagine a future vote for Scottish independence receiving so little quality coverage? Alex Salmond will make sure that everyone is informed of the arguments, and rightly so, as it is a huge potential change in how the Scottish people are governed. The bigwigs who are against it won't be able to control the agenda and the publicity that it receives, because Salmond is in charge.

The turnout was good nationally because it coincided with local elections in many places. ThaT suits the No campaign because they can say that that settles it, just as Mick Clegg has also said.

I doubt many people were so interested that they turned out to vote 'No to AV', except for Tory bigwigs and Labour bigwigs. Most people didn't really care. The people who did care were more likely to want change and vote Yes.

I wish we'd all spent more time in the last few weeks talking about the refendum and less about posh royal frocks.

You are right, democracy is important. A democratic decision has been made.

No, it didn't matter how much charisma was on teh side of Yes to AV, because all of the big powerful forces were agin it. But it didn't help to have Clegg as the champion, since to many people he is already discredited. Most people didn't vote because they couldn't care less, but if the public media had done its job of informing the public, then they might have cared more and they may have had the chance to get better governments in the future - not the "they're all the same", "they're all in it together" lot that they usually get.

Do any Guardian readers know what the position of the Guardian and Polly Toynbee was out of interest? The Guardian enthusisatically backed Clegg for the election. My guess is that they didn't enthusiastically back him on AV, but I don't know.

Surely there is nothing more important than demoicracy and a democratic voting system? It is the responsibility of the public's media, the media funded by the public, to inform the public to the greatest possible degree about such a monumental possible change to our democracy. They could have cut back a few dancing and cookery programmes and ran more political programmes in the run up to such an important vote. But then the result might have been different.

I love this thread. "I think we were probably in the majority on MN, but it was obvious that it was a lost cause and we would lose. The whole weight of spin was against us. There wasn't much discussion about it on TV etc. Most of the people in power never wanted any change. The unpopular Clegg was left flying the flag. "
Are you saying that if only someone with a bit more charisma had come along and championed the cause, then the no voters would have seen the light? That's even worse than implying that epople voted no because they are too thick to understand how AV works.

I accept that we lost. But I think the cards were stacked against us and against the people. The media has a huge influence in informing the public about the issues, but I think it did a poor job.

I want PR, but that doesn't mean I will vote LibDem, because I disagree with them on many other issues. That's why the people need to be given more referenda, so that they can vote on single issues.

The turnout was good because it was part of the council elections as well. If they had held the AV vote on its own separate day, I doubt it would have been as high, considering how ineffectively it was covered by the media.

What was Polly Toynbee's opinion on the AV vote? and what if anything did the Guardian back?

Even Clegg seems to want to move on. He says the decision was decisive, now we must move on. I didn't get the impression he was too upset about the decision.

It is sad to see socialists on talk shows saying it was a waste of money, and we should instead be spending money on hospitals and schools. They will never wake up; they will carry on believeing the same old, same old. Without a fair voting system that represents the people's wishes, nothing will change, and we can keep asking them to spend money effectively on hospitals and schools until the cows come home. This was a rare chance to change things. They had to give us the chance because the election result highlighted the unfairness of the way seats were allocated. Immediately after the election, most people wanted change. But they dragged it out, kicked it into the grass, and then finally gave us the chance, without giving it much discussion. They then told us we shouldn't even be having the chance; we should instead be talking about schools and hospitals. Plus ca change.

I think we were probably in the majority on MN, but it was obvious that it was a lost cause and we would lose. The whole weight of spin was against us. There wasn't much discussion about it on TV etc. Most of the people in power never wanted any change. The unpopular Clegg was left flying the flag. They have very cleverly buried the issue for another generation. That is the end of PR, just as the major politicians always wanted.

I might be completley wrong about this, but I think that those of us who argued the yes case were in a decided minority here. I think MD did reflect the outcome.

I voted yes so was too fed up to start a thread about a resounding defeat. There are some good reasons given here for people voting No, but I notice some of the Tory/John Reid lies misinformation sneaking in too.

Oh well. I've taken some comfort from the fact that my district was one of the few to vote yes.

I think it was a variation of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". A lot of people thought that AV wasn't different enough.
If there was a big positive change then it might have been worth risking any down-side. But there wasn't any discernable benefit (how many times was it trotted out that recent elections would have had the same result under FPTP or AV) so why hazard the law of unintended consequences?