to wonder why on earth so many people are going to vote no?

[nightowlmostly]

I just don't get the apathy with regard to this referendum tomorrow.

In what circumstances would you ever reject the opportunity to have a second choice option?

"Ok, if I can't have that one, I'd like this one instead."

What is it that people don't like about that? I am honestly baffled. Obviously, PR would be a better option, but we've got to take what we can get when it comes to reforming the voting system, this will just be a small step. If the no vote wins, we will never get another opportunity to vote for change.

If you are voting no, I would genuinely like to know your reasons why!

i like to vote in an election where i know that the person with the most votes wins the seat.

Same as theinet.

But... you could still just vote for your first choice and no others even if it did change, couldn't you?

Agree with theinet too.

Because I know who I want to vote for, and dislike the others?

The voters capacity to be confused is endless just with a first past the post system.

I don't think anything else needs to be added to the mix.

Because Peter Stringfellow told them to.

I can't understand why you would vote against it either - AV is a way of allowing you to express your preferences, not just vote for one party.

People vote tactically under the current system though, don't they? In the sense of 'I really want to vote for X, but they won't get enough votes to get in, so I'll vote for Y, because I hate them less than I hate Z'. It'll still work that way whatever happens, if I understand it correctly (which to be fair, I probably don't). Also, I thought this business of it costing millions to change to AV was made up to put people off?

x posts with you stranded.

I know exactly how to vote having done it for a while now, but even I think 'Is that right? A cross in that one?'

Make it more complicated and watch the voting level drop more through the floor than it is already.

i lke a certain party. i don't like the others . At all. And so won't rank them when i vote.

Why should i be disadvantaged by not choosing to rank a preference for them when i find them odious and don't want my vote to go towards them. While someone who may devil may care with their vote and put down 5 preferences, get 5 potential votes.

Because that's what happens with AV. It's rubbish and even the Yes campaign admit its flawed.

You can still vote for just one party if you want to. If there are 5 candidates, you don't have to rank them all - or at least that's my understanding of it. (I'm sure I'll be corrected if that's wrong!)

But - the most important thing of all is that people turn out and vote.

I'm voting No.

I have no second preference, I know who I want to vote for and that is that.

I don't understand the point about the person with the most votes winning. If a candidate doesn't have enough votes, then they are ELIMINATED (not more likely to win). For people who would like to vote for a smaller party but feel they can't because "this is a Tory/Lab seat" whichever, AV gives them a chance to say - well fuck it, I know the Tory/Lab candidate will win anyway because my candidate will be eliminated but by God I want them to know that they don't have my no.1 vote and can't bleat on about how I've given them a "mandate" for x, y or z I don't agree with.

In a FTP system, the winning candidate pretends they have a mandate when they (in fact) don't have the confidence of many, many voters.

Also, bottom line: if AV is so unfair, why do the politicians use it to elect their leaders? That tells you everything you need to know about AV.

Vote Yes!

If nothing else, it makes for THRILLING elections.

One person. One vote. Simples.

And AV is NOT proportional representation, which is what the LibDems are really wanting. The Conservatives had to agree to a referendum to get the LibDems on board, and have somehow managed to water it down to AV.

You can still vote for one party, true, but then your vote is worth less.

Why should you be "forced" into ranking parties who you hate? And if you don't rank them, effectively be penalised. It's a nonsense.

Voting should a a legal requirement like the census.

There should be an option such as none of the above.

Good point, W9w5 re electing party leaders.

I'm voting no.

I believe in strong government and think that FPTP generally achieves that better than an AV system where it is less likely that one party will achieve an overall majority with which to govern.

I dont necessarily think that FPTP is the best way, but I dont think that AV as it is being proposed is better. One of the real problems with AV as it is being proposed is that someone's 6th choice preference could carry as much weight as someone's first choice. For AV to really work, the lower preferences should carry lower weight, IMHO.

Plus, the additional complexity may put even more people off, as Agentzigzag says, which I think should be avoided (as I am one of those people who think voting should be compulsory!!).

I am voting no. I don't think that is apathy.

I don't want the enemy called average. Nor do I want the likes of BNP or the communists getting in.

KISS!

There's no way that the BNP will get in - they will, in all probability, be eliminated in the first round.

"i like to vote in an election where i know that the person with the most votes wins the seat."

But the person with the most votes in FPTP doesn't necessarily have more votes than everyone else put together - a minority can vote someone in through the current system (as per the current government)

"I have no second preference, I know who I want to vote for and that is that" But under AV you could just stick a 1 next to their name, and leave the others blank. And the rest of us who DO have a second preference, can then express it.

I agree with working9while - if it's unfair, politicians wouldn't use it for their own leadership elections. And a no now may mean no chance to progress to PR in years to come.