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!

they introduced AV in Australia and its complexity put so many people off they had to make voting compulsory AND also make ranking every party on the list compulsory. Everyone hates the system and they are trying to get rid of it at the moment. Only 2 other countries use it, Papua New Guinea and some Pacific Island i can't remember the name of!

because I think AV is a crock of shit.

You've just made me think theinte, I find it hard enough to decide who to vote for out of the best of a bad lot, to try and put them in order would force me to learn about each political party and candidate and I couldn't think of anything I'd rather do less.

I can imagine lots of people would just think 'fuck it, I'll not bother then if I've got to put in that much effort'.

what theinet said. I don't have a second preference, I wouldn't use it.

I was getting really confused with all the arguments for and against AV. But now I will be voting Yes. Someone explained today that in the current FPTP system someone can win by having 35% of the votes but that is surely wrong because it means that 65% of the voters do not want that person to win. That really made sense to me.

If you only want to vote for 1 party you do not have to put a 2nd or 3rd choice.

One person will ALWAYS have one vote.

The vote that will be counted is the one that elects a person. That's all. You don't have "two votes" You have one.

If you vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party no. 1 and Labour no. 2, when it becomes transparent that the MRLP candidate will not each the 50% threshold, your vote transfers to the Tories.

It is not an additional vote, however it does demonstrate better the diversity of the electorate instead of assuming that x party has won because everyone loves them. It shows that the person is not 100% committed to backing the tories.

This is democratically important.

i live in ireland and arguably we have a more complicated system than this AV thing (PR-STV) and i don't think turnout for elections here is shockingly bad, and i don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that the electorate here is any more competent than the british electorate. i have no dog in this race as such, but just for info.

I'm voting no. AV is a rubbish system that noone really wants. Leads to weak coalition governments is confusing and expensive.

Oops, that should be not 100% committed to backing Labour. Slip of the key..

The 2010 Australian election conducted under full preferential voting produced a parliament with no overall control. The Labor Party government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard returned to office after obtaining the general support of cross-bench independents and minor parties.

Had the election been conducted under first past the post voting rules, it would have been highly likely that the Opposition Liberal-National Party Coalition would have won a narrow majority of seats.

Not surprisingly, the governing Labor Party's policy supports the continued use of full preferential voting. Support for full preferential voting remains the policy of both the Liberal Party and the National Party, despite the system having been responsible for their 2010 defeat.

The only party that does not support full preferential voting is the Australian Greens, whose policy is STV, and if single member electorates are used, optional rather than full preferential voting, AV as it is known in the United Kingdom.

So none of Australia's political parties support first past the post voting. So where exactly is this move back to first past the post voting coming from?

hehe, and that's made up my mind for sure working9while5.

And we have a strong coalition government now?

That's something I don't get about the Vote No campaign - 'AV will lead to coalition governments, and they're shite and we don't want that to happen do we?' - coming from the Tories who are only in power because they are in a coalition.

One of the biggest misrepresentations concerning AV is that somehow votes are not equal, that some votes count for more than other votes.

That is not correct. Every voter has one vote, though it is a single transferable vote for those that want to be technical.

At the end of an AV count, there is no change to the number of ballot papers or to the values of the ballot papers. Each of them remains one vote.

All that happens in an AV count is that the counting system converts the contest from a multi-candidate contest into a two candidate race.

Sporting analogies have been common in referendum advertising. One analogy was even raised in Prime Minister's Question Time, when Mr Cameron was asked who would be declared the winner in races at the London Olympics.

Yet raising the Olympics is an interesting comparison. Sporting contests might be first past the post, but wasn't London awarded the Olympics by a vote pretty much the same as AV?

When you look at that Olympics vote, the nonsense argument that some ballot papers count more than others falls apart. The table below sets out the rounds of voting in the IOC ballot.
IOC Ballot for City to Host 2012 Olympics City London Paris Madris New York Moscow
First round 22 21 20 19 15
Second round 27 25 32 16
Third round 39 33 31
Fourth round 54 50
The vote was taken as an exhaustive ballot, all cities put to the first round of voting, the lowest polling Moscow dropping out for the second round, and so on for New York and Madrid until the last round of voting saw the final two horse race conducted between London and Paris.

No one would say that the supporters of London had only one vote while those of Moscow had up to five. In an exhaustive ballot, every voter gets one vote in each round of voting.

AV is simply a paper implementation of an exhaustive ballot and the same rule applies, every ballot paper gets to count once in each round of the AV count.

I'm voting No. One person, one vote. I don't see the point of a complicated, costly system that ends up with someone that no one really wanted.

Thanks for all replies everyone! It seems that the negative no campaign has really done it's work, there has been a lot of lies spread about the costs, ie that the referendum will cost x amount. Well, it will cost what it costs, regardless of the result, so that doesn't make sense for a start. Also, the introduction of compulsory voting is Australia had nothing to do with the introduction of AV.

I just find it very depressing that we are about to pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity to get better and fairer representation in our parliament.

I think some people will never vote anyway, and a slight margin would use this as an excuse not to. Doubt it would make much difference that way, I doubt i'll bother until theres a fine for not doing so. Sorry, just me (and most people i know )

People vote no because they're bonkers, evil, possessed by gnomes, or in love with Peter Stringfellow.

IOC Ballot for City to Host 2012 Olympics City
London Paris Madris New York Moscow
First round 22 21 20 19 15
Second round 27 25 32 16
Third round 39 33 31
Fourth round 54 50

Sorry about earlier post with wonky table

Taken from Antony Green Blog = Am australian who is sharing his knowledge

I like the idea of AV. But it wouldn't be my first choice.

Apathy would be not voting at all. Voing NO isn't apathy, surely?

I am really unsure what to do. I don't feel convinced by AV and although I am swayed by nice people like Stephen Fry and Eddie Izzard and funny cat videos, I still don't feel like I want to vote Yes for something which is a compromise and which I do not fully understand the consequences of.

If someone votes:

1. BNP
2. UKIP
3. Tories

in a "safe" Tory seat, this does not mean that BNP are suddenly going to have a massive proportion of votes.

They will have the same small number they always had. They will be eliminated and their votes will transfer to UKIP, who will then be eliminated.. and the Tories wil get in

However, having this vote recorded demonstrates that there ARE people who currently vote Tory (or Labour) whose heart isn't in it... who would WANT a BNP government if they could get it. It gives an idea of what the people really think.. and that, my dears, is imperative to allow democracy to work. Whether you like the views of the BNP or the Communists or whatever is sort of irrelevant.. the fact that some people want to vote for them and feel disenfranchised by the current main parties is important information for all of us to know. When radicals don't have a legitimate voice they tend to resort to illegitimate means of making themselves heard..

blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/04/a-summary-of-the-misrepresentations-of-australias-voting-system.html#more

Read this australian who tries to tell us what it is really like in practice in Oz

Since they are only going for AV because they believe you as a people are too stupid for PR, voting no to AV really only confirms that, and you are left with the out-dated and frankly laughable FPTP system.

They do say a people get the government/system they deserve.....