to ask for your opinion on the AV referendum?

[redexpat]

I've read all the arguments for and against AV and first past the post, and listened specially to Radio 4, but I simply can't decide which way to vote! They all seem equally valid. Thoughts?

The AV referendum is a completely fake choice. It's like asking us all 'Would you like a rat burger or a slug sandwich?': there's no option to say 'No, actually they both sound gross, I'd like a caesar salad please'.

We're all sitting here debating the pros and cons of rat burgers versus slug sandwiches, but the reality is that neither option is nice or particularly desirable.

The reformers have been massively stiffed. Clegg's condition for joining the coalition was a referendum on electoral reform. But what he's ended up with is a referendum that asks us to choose between the existing fairly shit system (rat burger) and a new, more complicated, basically just as shit system that won't actually be any fairer (slug sandwich). In the process any opportunity for meaningful electoral reform has evaporated.

A Yes vote is a vote in favour of some apparatchik dicking around with the existing shit system in order to implement a similarly shit system which will cost vast sums to implement, for just as many safe seats, even more byzantine tactical voting and the exhaustion of political will for electoral reform for another century or so.

As The Economist says, the only reason to vote Yes is because it might be a step toward PR; but such a massive constitutional change as this should be voted in on its own merits, not because it might eventually lead to something else. So given that the available choices are bullshit, I would prefer to stick with the existing system in the dim hope that eventually a meaningful alternative will be proposed.

In a nutshell, I don't want either a rat burger or a slug sandwich, but if that's all that's on offer right now I'd rather stick to what I know and concentrate on campaigning for a proper menu.

A yes vote tomorrow will leave the door open for further improvements to the voting system. A no vote will slam the door shut for a generation or more.

FPTP is not fit for purpose if there are more than two choices. There are sometimes now six or ten candidates on the ballot paper. Lets choose a system that makes the majority of people feel that their vote counts, and help end the decline in turnout and political engagement.

Get thee to the polling booth tomorrow, and vote Yes Yes Yes!

Yes for me after listening to Radio 2. Peter Stringfellow for the Yes campaign.

I mean. Really?

And...
AV is a huge improvement on FPTP, more of a salami sandwich imho. Stick with the existing system and you'll be stuck with the existing system. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

Yes, it may seem like a fake choice, but why is this the choice?

If we get AV, we'll be stuck with AV. They'll say 'Oooh, no, we can't change it again, look how expensive and chaotic it was last time, and besides, you've got what you wanted haven't you? We changed the system, you have more choices, now get back in your boxes and stop whinging about electoral reform.' And that'll be it.

And no, AV is a slug sandwich. Not a salami in sight

yeah but, Peter Stringfellow

Australian's do not want rid of AV. Most Australians support it. One poll with a dodgily worded question had Australians supposedly saying they wanted rid of AV. In almost all other polls, Australians have supported it and think it gives a fairer result.

And I don't like Labour but will be voting yes - it is not that simple at all.

And as for the objections about it being ridiculous that we are now being asked to choose the voting system with a FPTP ballot - there are only 2 options currently on offer therefore whichever gets the most votes has to have more than 50% of the votes cast - so it is irrelevant whether this poll is conducted by AV or FPTP - same result.

Fair point, Shirley. I mean, what were they thinking ?

On a more serious note, though, I don't buy the idea that bringing in AV will make further reform more likely. On the contrary, I think the hassle and debate around implementing AV will kill any further energy for electoral reform stone dead.

It's like wanting a pair of trousers, only to be offered a different-coloured dress. If you accept the different-coloured dress, and still want trousers, the rejoinder will be 'Well we got you some new clothes, why are you still complaining?'

Can someone explain - in terms a 5 year old might understand - why "the vote would be decided by the BNP" is utter rubbish?

If say Labour got 150 votes, Conservatives got 130 votes, UKIP got 90 and BNP got 61 votes but all of the BNP voters put UKIP as their second choice, couldn't we still end up voting in a party that the majority don't want?

Apologies if that is an utterly stupid suggestion. Politics confuses me totally

If the No side win Dave and Co will be crowing about how "the people have spoken and they want the system to stay as it is", and we'll never be allowed to raise the subject again.

I agree that proper PR is the end goal, but AV will at least get us a half-step away from the same old, same old FPTP nonsense. If half the people voting No are only doing so because they think AV isn't good enough rather than because they actually want to keep FPTP then we're going to be stuffed!

If the No side wins then a lot of people who want real electoral reform will still be very frustrated. That will lend energy and vitality to a proper campaign for meaningful change.

If the Yes side wins then people who want real electoral reform will be told to shut up, because they've got what they wanted haven't they? Even though the new system is just as crap as the old one.

No Blather because it would then go to a third round with the Conservative votes being reallocated. Conservative votes could not be reallocted to BNP (already eliminated so those votes would just drop out) presumably some would go to UKIP and you would get either a Labour or UKIP result

Sorry Blather - meant to say explicitely - you have to get over 50% of the votes at any stage to win so in your scenario the combined UKIP/BNP vote still would not be over 50% hence the third round in which the party with the lowest votes has theirs reallocated.

You might get a party that would not be the first choice of the majority but you don't get a party that the majority defnitely do not want which is what you often get under FPTP.

But how can you be sure that under the current system a government elected by a minority of the electorate is definitely unwanted by the rest?

A vote for party X under FPTP doesn't necessarily mean a vote against all the other parties. I flipped a coin in the polling booth at the last general election; I can't be the only person who was undecided.

Just because there is no record of what people's second or third choice might have been doesn't mean they are actively hostile to all candidates apart from the one they voted for.

Besides, under AV we'll still end up with governments that were the first choice of only a minority of the electorate. How is that any different?

As I said, it's rat burger versus slug sandwich.

But in my scenario, having UKIP voted in is a bad thing and seemingly more of a possibilty than with FPTP...no?

[Claps for OP] Vote YES for future change people! Progress is a slow process and this is our chance to get things moving towards where we want to be. A NO vote will be putting the kabosh on changes for generations.

I will be voting YES!!!!!!!

I think the fact that both Labour AND the Conservatives use AV within their own parties to vote for their leadership shows that it is a definite step in the right direction.

Fair enough Manatee - although I guess a better way to put it is that under FPTP you often get a party that the majority want the least. This happens in a lot of tightly fought labour/conservative constituencies since in most cases Labour supporters do not want Conservatives and Conservatives do not want Labour (they are fairly idealogically opposed afterall). Few people flip coins between Labour and Conservative (Conservative v Lib dem or Labour v Lib dem perhaps). To a certain extent AV removes the need to flip that coin by reducing the need for tactical voting.

And the rat burger v slug sandwich is not a great analogy just because you said it I would chose AV over PR personally.

To an extent Blather yes. Really extremist minority parties are much less likely to get anywhere under AV but those a bit in the middle could do better. Of course under PR they would almost all do better.

So do you vote in a manner calculated specifically to disenfranchise those you disagree with? (rhetoric question generally aimed)

Thanks SarahBumBarer In that case I think I shall vote "No"

I was going to vote "Yes" but I think there are a lot of areas where racist parties like the BNP/UKIP are not as miority as we would like and it scares me to think that we could end up with them being taken more seriously because they can gang up and gain seats. A BNP vote should stay a wasted vote IMO

Will vote Yes. We had a three-way split in my electorate last time. I strongly suspect that if we had voted under AV the result would have been very different.

By the way, many PR systems operate a "threshold" system. In NZ, for example, you need 5% of the nationwide votes to get over the threshold. This keeps out many extremist parties.

"Get me a coke, if they haven't got any get me a sprite"

Not really, more like

"Get me a coke, if they haven't got any, ask the drunk at the end of the bar what he thinks I should have instead and get me that"

And please don't be fooled by the people that tell you "its a step in the right direction". If this happens we will be stuck with it for years. Just like in Australia. There is no reason to think it will be changed to PR.

at "Get me a coke, if they haven't got any, ask the drunk at the end of the bar what he thinks I should have instead and get me that"

That's exactly my fear

People's voting won't change. The big 2/3 parties will still get the majority of the votes but the final desicion will be made by the voters who's 2nd choices are taken first. People who usually vote for the parties that get the lowest amount of votes - ie the BNP etc. I don't want poeple with IQs that low chosing our government!