to vote against AV just because I can't stand Nick Clegg?

[headfairy]

Or is that just handing the Tories a victory and cutting off my nose to spite my face? I'm truly undecided about AV but I'd like to see NC royally whooped for being such a two faced twunt.

I think that's it - every little does help.

It's sadly all about 'sending a message' - most notably to the media, who will get the message, and propagate it, that people aren't that enamoured with politics as it's played at the moment.

Me too narky. I cannot wait to sneer at them and say something cutting like " you TRAITORS"

HF

You know what, that was always the impression I got; but there's been so much printed about his tempers that I assumed I was being a silly naive prat by ignoring the people who actually worked with him.

I have read the leaflet and understand the principle but worry about smaller parties gaining seats and holding disproportionate power in Parliament. If an overall majority of seats being held by one party becomes less likely, that means more horsetrading with these smaller parties in order to get Bills passed. Is that fairer than one party having all the power? It could simply lead to concession being made to smaller parties that are, ultimately, rather undemocratic in their effect.

Headfairy - av gives you a "fairer" result in your constituency, as the winner will have a bigger share of the voters preference. But it doesn't deliver a fair proportion of the seats for all parties over the country as a whole - you may still get eg 8 labour seats and no green seats even though you use av.

pr systems (there's more than one way of trying to do it) look at the overall number of votes for each party over the country as a whole and try to make sure the number of seats each party gets is proportional to how many people voted for them.

So if there are 100 seats, and 1/100 of the country voted green, you would get one green mp, even if there were no particular constituencies where a green "won".

Its trickier to set up though, and means you may not have a "local mp" for your constituency.

Scotland currently uses a mixed system, so you still have a constituency mp who represents your area, picked by the traditional first past the post syste. But then there are additional "list MPs" who are chosen in a way which balances up the number of constituency mps compared with the overall vote, to make it more fair.

The point about fascism is that it's fundamentally anti-democratic. It thrives where democracy is discredited.

We've seen a fair few MPs, including a former minister JAILED for fraud, not to mention the hundreds who were reprimanded. I think democracy in this country has been terribly discredited, and it's not OK to say we'll just carry on as we were.

Peachy I think he was just utterly unsuited to the role as PM... he's a number cruncher, a work horse but not a people person at all.

HF very much the impression I got as well.

I think, today espeically, PM is a PR role: popular face of, as it were. GB wasn't that. I do think he did a lot of good though.

The only aspect of PR I worry about is hte local MP; am fortunate to have an AM as well, but have used both of mine extensively for such things as Sn placements. Many people find the wheels of dbureaucracy only move with an MP or Am pushing. If I were still back in England I'd be loathe, unless they do the sensible thing and get an English Assembly going whihc migt pick up the slack. AMs are as useful as MPs ime.

OP - I know what you mean! I am torn on the issue as a whole. Not sure whether our culture means it will result in more consensus building or more horsetrading by the extremes. But a little of me wants to vote No regardless because "fuck you Nick Clegg". Somewhat like the idea of spoiling my ballot paper but that's only slightly less self-indulgent (for me).

I am trying to be the bigger person and make up my mind on the issue instead. I will think of the children an the political legacy we leave them.

YABU. I'm in favour of AV as I think it's a fairer system, and will vote for it even though I'm not a great fan of Nick Clegg.

The thing that worries me the most about something like AV is that it has the whiff of having a recount until the 'right' party wins .... just because someone gets the most votes (through counting second/third/fourth etc votes) somehow they become not so much the preferred candidate as the one who is disliked the least ....

Also practically, getting folk into a booth to make a mark for one candidate is hard enough, now we have to RANK them - it doesn't make sense

see justafleshwound you're making a very convincing argument there too... I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect electoral system. Unless you count a dictatorship. But it's only perfect for the people on the right side of the dictator :o

thanks for that AmuminScotland, that's really clear. Losing a local MP would worry me too. I can see how it's much more representative of the country as a whole, but people need local representation too.

The most tempting thing about voting not to AV is that Nick Clegg would get booted out by the Libdems and the coalition would possibly crumble, then the Tories would be a minority govt. But Ed Miliband is so weak right now I reckon the tories would win a gen election if it were called on that basis.

Oh, back to square one....

I think what you'll get is people like Independent candidates taking the trouble to inform people about the political process.

The current system is all about smoke and mirrors; the less the populace know, the better it is for the two, and maybe the three, main parties.

Honestly, I'd say Nick Clegg is finished anyway. It doesn't make sense to vote against AV to do him more damage - what's the point?

Better to think about getting some decent women people into parliament.

Oh you're doing a great job there wheresmidunkey of persuading me :o

Anything that increases representation of 50% of the population more is good in my book.

www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_systems/general_uk_parliamentary_ele/alternative_vote.aspx

"To be elected a candidate must receive more than half of the valid votes cast.

The votes are counted in stages. In the first round only first preferences are counted. If a candidate receives more than half of the valid votes cast, they are elected. If no candidate has received half of the votes cast, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and all of their votes are passed to the next preference on the ballot papers.

This process is repeated until a candidate is elected. If there is a tie at any stage then a candidate is selected by the drawing of lots."

I think some people are against AV because they assume the first party is "knocked out" after the first round. Actually the winning party from the first round is included once again in the second, third rounds etc.

Why is it fair?

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

* All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history. 
* It retains the same constituencies, meaning no need to redraw boundaries, and no overt erosion of the constituency-MP link.
* It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes.
* It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.
* It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the need for negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad-church policies.

The trouble is that the Greens are "one of a kind", so to speak. BNP voters will put UKIP second and vice versa and they'll both, probably, put the Tories third. I think that's dangerous tbh. The vast majority of "sane" people are likely to put the Lib.Dems second or third (in England at any rate) which means they'll have much more likely chance of more MPs in the next parliament. After their "u-turn" behaviour this time? I should cocoa!!

Not that I'm a huge fan of the first past the post system, no sir! But I think I'm of the "better the devil you know" mind on this issue.

Yes YABU. Not least because you would be joining Blunkett, Cameron and Prescott on the no side.

Well this thread has been very informative, thank you. AV it is.

I do think a more open democratic system would expose the BNP and UKIP for the nutters they are. After all, every sane candidate will be against them. Hardly any of the fascist candidates are likely to be women, and obviously not exactly ethnically diverse.

But politics is about choosing the party not the candidates ... perhaps the reform should come from within and make sure that the parties have the right policies ....

ooo Frantic, now I'm not sure after your last post about BNP/UKIP. As an aside, I went to school with our area's UKIP person and once kicked him in the nuts and floored him; he was a prick back then too.

It doesn't have to be about choosing the party. A lot of people choose on the basis of how well the candidate is likely to serve the local constituency, often based on their track record. Maybe it's because of choosing on the basis of parties that we've had a parliament full of fraudsters.

Also if you felt strongly that there should be more women in parliament, you could give all your votes to women candidates, except any rare female fascist creatures that the BNP or UKIP had managed to dig out of a hole in the ground.