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?

To win you still need 50% of people to put them ahead of the next biggest party. To be honest it is unlikely to even help the greens much - but then I never expected them to get the seat they have...

if a NO win gives the message that we are all happy with FPTP, then by the same token a YES win gives the message that we are all happy with AV. it does not say that we want PR at all.

can someone who said it is a step towards PR please explain how they think this will be achieved? have the politicians actually said,' tell you what, lets try this and if you agree with it we will move on to PR' i cant see any political party really wanting to share power other than those who ONLY have a chance of a say if they do. the bigger parties are always going to want to be king.

any voting system should come with a legal obligation to vote imo

Right, bar the "it's not how Britain does it" (wtf!?) - is what scares me

stuffthenonsense the idea is that most minority parties would prefer PR
AV should end up with a few more minority MPs in power
Giving them a voice to push for PR

Additionally
It shows that people want change. All of the politicians know that AV is a compromise between the two coalition parties. If it were just a tory or probably labour govt this wouldn't be happening. Libs want PR. AV is the compromise between the tories and libs. The politicians can't pretend that they and everyone else doesn't know this. So a vote for AV is IMO a vote to show a desire for change.

That's how I see it anyway. I can see the "Don't vote for AV as it's not PR and you want PR" argument. But PR isn't on the table and IMO if a no to AV result is recorded tomorrow then that will be the end of it. It will be seen that people are happiest with what we have now and voting reform will be off teh agenda for god knows how long.

Blatherskite - I've watched that - it really missed the point.

Yes the smallest party is redistributed first and their second preferences could cause the second largest party on 1st preferences to overtake the largest.

What you should remember is that this is exactly the same outcome as if that smallest party had not existed in the first place.

In their example if the two largest parties had a head to head, the second one would win - the same one would win as under AV. The first one only wins under FPTP because the BNP is splitting the vote against them.

The AV result is fairer - as always.

I hadn't looked at it that way...

Do you know, I've spent all morning on Facebook, Twitter and Mumsnet talking about this and so far, you've made the most sense. Thank you Paul :)

you're welcome

My first AV thread on here was saying I wanted to vote NO to punish the LDs. But actually during the discussions I have realised that it is more important than that. How often to we actually get a chance to improve the system?

Yes, punishing the LibDems is a perverse and petty aim for one's vote.

With regard to splitting the vote, Blatherskite, I believe Ralph Nader got a lot of blame in the 2000 US presidential election for splitting the liberal vote which might have gone to Al Gore... if he had campaigned harder and been less patronising - see, it is about making good politicians work harder.

In that election, the risk did turn up, but it was not Ralph Nader but the awful lot of cheating (Florida especially) which actually to allow George W Bush to become president. (See Greg Palast: "The Best democracy Money Can Buy").

Liberal/conservative blocs can be split, but it happens a lot more easily in apathetic societies. It happened to us in the UK last year, I seemed to remember.... Under the current system.

punishing the Lib Dems for their actions in breaking manifesto pledges is an entirely sensible and legitimate use of a vote, if you are so minded.

Electors are entitled to use their vote however they choose. It's the only method we have of registering our disapproval of a government, or party that wants to be in government.

The Lib Dems lied last time - performed a 180 degree turn as soon as they got a sniff of power - why should anyone trust what they say this time?

Was undecided till I saw that the Daily Mail reckons a 'No vote is a vote for democracy' Clearly it is NOT !!

yes yes yes yes yes yes

Thank you everyone - especially Paul - not only did I finally decide to vote Yes but by the time Dh got home, I had my reasoning so worked out that without trying to, I changed his mind from No to Yes too! He asked me how I was voting and why and I told him.

He decided I made sense!!

ah, but edam, if we have AV, we can NOT choose LibDems in future elections, thereby punishing them much more appropriately!

Wow, Blatherskite, that's a result! Part of a very noble tradition: apparently, before suffrage was extended to women, some women claimed to be happy without a vote, because "any woman who cannot persuade her husband how to vote does not deserve her own". Hmmmm.... Nah, full suffrage is still better!

plu, there was the opposing line that if they gave women the vote, the frail little things would only do what their husbands told them, though... heads too stuffed full of frills and furbelows to understand anything as serious as politics, obviously.

Ye-es. We have come a long way, thank God!

Well, the polling stations are closing soon, and I'm wondering whether it will take all of five minutes to count every vote at ours! Admittedly, I voted off-peak (with DS literally in tow - dragging him, when I wasn't carrying him), but the returning officers looked extremely bored.

Yes.

I can see why many people just won't be that bothered though. And I completely understand that many people will want to use a No vote to get back at Clegg.

I just like to find the better argument and support it.

I see today Clegg is being all humble about the local election results (AV counting doesn't start till 4pm).

Assuming a "no" to AV, that humble stance can neatly be extended to embrace martyrdom, that they as a small party will continue to be discriminiated against. That is: the Lib Dems will be able to pretend that any future poor electoral performance can be blamed on the fact that the system is still first past the post, so they are "losing" votes to tactical voters... rather than admitting that they have become unpopular through their part in this coalition, which meant voting against various manifesto pledges (tuition fees, etc.).

Sadly, Clegg is probably clever enough to play this line, and not many people will call him on it (as they'll probably be ignoring him!).

cleggers reckons LDs are being punished for the coalition cuts

err no luvey, you are being punished for being weak idiots who cant stick to your promises - you can only fool the gullible for so long

Quite, florencedougal! I imagine they will be using this AV business as a fig leaf for quite some time.