Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

215 replies

nightowlmostly · 04/05/2011 20:40

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!

OP posts:
follyfoot · 05/05/2011 06:17

I think the fact that AV is used to appoint party leaders is a complete red herring. Thing is with party leaders voting, they are all actually from the same party which makes ranking them (when you yourself are in that party) pretty straightforward. So 'who is the best orator', 'who would get most votes for us in an election', 'who has the most interest in education/health/whatever' etc is a pretty straightforward decision. None of them actually represent something you dont want to vote for, its a ranking of capability and nuance.

In a general election, for many people there is only one party that they actually want to vote for. They dont actually want any of the others. Thats why I would vote no to AV. PR I might think differently about though.

Paul88 · 05/05/2011 07:43

No YANBU - I wonder too. It is such a lost opportunity. I know the Scots and Welsh have had referenda but this is the first for the English in what - 30 years? and we have been consistently lied to and scaremongered by a well funded NO campaign, a feeble YES campaign has completely missed the point (i.e. that THIS IS THE FAIREST WAY TO ELECT SOMEONE) sorry to shout but that's what happens when people ARE UNREASONABLE.

In AV the winner is almost always the candidate who would win in a head to head competition with any other candidate. In FPTP it is not.

The person who gets most votes in the first round would often be beaten by one of the others in a head to head. That is why FPTP is a bad system. It doesn't matter if there are only two parties but these days there are more. So all of you saying "the person who gets the most votes should win" think a bit harder about it. The person who can beat all the others in a one on one fight should win; and in some cases that is not the same as the one who gets most first preferences.

There are some people in this country who cannot count, and perhaps they should not be disenfranchised. But remember if they understand enough to mark an X for their favorite candidate they can still do that and their first preference will be counted. We should not stick with a simplistic and unfair and archaic system for this reason.

The stories about how much it costs are LIES.

The stories about the Australians not liking it are LIES.

More people will vote as all of a sudden they can vote for their favourite party even if it won't stand a chance in the first round and not be wasting their time.

AV is one person one vote. In FPTP many of the votes are thrown away. Everybody's vote does count the same in AV.

FPTP is a misnomer - the post is not a fixed point. In AV you have to get 50% - that is a real finish line and you have to be a real winner.

Nowhere in Europe uses FPTP - if they don't use PR they use a runoff sustem which is just like AV but over two rounds so it costs twice as much - you eliminate all but two in the forst round and then have another vote between the top two.

The BNP are against AV - they won't get seats this way.

Glad to see that as the thread progresses the voices of reason arrive - the rubbish is mostly on the first page. Maybe there is hope after all.

psychoveggie · 05/05/2011 07:45

I will be voting "yes". AV isn't my preferred system but I think if we vote yes to a reform of the voting system the door will be opened to further reform. FPTP is terribly outdated and all the Tories and Labour MPs in safe seats with around a third of the vote will no longer be able to rest on their laurels under AV, which IMO can only be a good thing. TBH I feel we have been patronised pretty disgustingly by the "no" campaign and let down by politicians (as always) who refuse to give the public a proper choice. If we're having a referendum why not open it up to PR as well? Perhaps because the proles are too stupid to understand.

So depressing Sad

exoticfruits · 05/05/2011 07:46

I had a long argument, in town, on Saturday with a man handing out yes posters. In the end he agreed that it was a rubbish system, but it was a stepping stone for change and better to take it that stick with the present. I said that I was still voting NO, until such a time as they came up with a better system-I wasn't settling for a stepping stone to something in the future (that may never come).

Chil1234 · 05/05/2011 07:46

"Surely if you don't vote yes tomorrow, you're stuck with FPTP for a generation"

That assumes that 'stuck with FPTP' is a bad thing. Since everyone keeps saying... 'AV is a stepping stone to PR'... if you don't like the idea of PR (the system where the tin-pot little parties really do get to hold the balance of power), then 'no' to AV is a good way to say no to PR at the same time.

GiddyPickle · 05/05/2011 07:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Clytaemnestra · 05/05/2011 08:25

I'm even more keen to go and vote no today after this thread, due to the sanctimonious opinions that I'm too stupid to understand AV as if I did I would agree with it. Honestly it's not complicated, but I don't agree with it. FPTP with equal size constituencies for everyone (in as far as that is possible) is my prefered option.

Cheers for totally cementing my opinion!

dreamingofsun · 05/05/2011 08:34

another 'no' vote here. can't agree to a system that allows someone who no-one voted for as first choice to win - why would you want someone you were luke warm about to represent you. i also disagree with the change purely because its convenient for one party - ie lib dems.

psychoveggie · 05/05/2011 08:37

why would you want someone you were luke warm about to represent you.

Because, IMO, it's better to have someone that 80% of the electorate felt ok about than someone that 65% of the electorate didn't want at all (which is perfectly possible in our current system).

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 05/05/2011 08:41

I'm voting no.

For the reason that a lot of people hardly know enough about policies to choose
one person to vote for and I'm sure would just tick the other boxes at random, or not put nearly enough thought into it.

Paul88 · 05/05/2011 08:44

"can't agree to a system that allows someone who no-one voted for as first choice to win" - is that izzy again?

if someone gets no first preferences, they are out first round. No way they can win. As you know.

wotnochocs · 05/05/2011 08:57

The 0ne with the most votes should win.Simple as that.Also think of the cost of administering AV!
I would have voted for PR but DC hasn't given the electorate the option to choose that.

Paul88 · 05/05/2011 09:11

it seems the NO campaigners really do think the rest of us are stupid.

CaroBeaner · 05/05/2011 09:11

"If the no vote wins, we will never get another opportunity to vote for change."

I don't believe that. I don't see how voting for a system that solves none of the current problems, may cause others (third past the post wins, for e.g) and costs us a fortune, pointlessly, helps us press for REAL and meaningful change.

Candidates will just spout (even more) bollocks in order to secure the second choice votes of people who don't agree with them anyway! It will reduce the whole syste to bargain basment cynicism and manipulation, IMO.

CaroBeaner · 05/05/2011 09:14

Moreten - no, AV is far more expensive because of the recounts and the need to count more than just one X on a slip, and to grade the X's in order.

ScroobiousPip · 05/05/2011 09:19

We actually have a more complicated system here in NZ called MMP, where half the MPs are FPTP constituency MPs and the other half are voted in off a list by proportional representation.

On the whole, it's pretty well understood as a system and there's no doubt it has lead to better governance. The excesses of power in the 1980s have been replaced with better representation for all in Parliament and a more collaborative approach to government. I have to say that on the whole it makes for better laws and better decisions than the FPTP system back home.

jenny60 · 05/05/2011 09:20

Giddy again, it's really disingenuous to point to one poll, taken after a tricky election where a whole 57% of Australians asked opposed AV. By any serious standards, that is not evidence. There are very strong pro-PR movements in Australia but no serious campaign to introduce FPTP. Go figure.

You speak about how to vote cards in Australia as though these are illegal or somehow dupe people into voting a particular way. Remember that many, many people vote in an order preferred by their party because they are tribal voters and will vote in the way favoured by their party, how to vote cards or not. This happens everywhere. No one is forced, no one is duped, whereas here I know I have personally been told by a party worker to vote against her party in my constituency because it would keep out the main opposition to both parties. How is this democratic? That happens here up and down the country. It's dishonest too and in my opinion no worse to Australian type how to vote cards.

As for the business of AV leading to PR, well no one sensible is saying there is an automatic move from one to another. Nothing like it. But for anyone who thinks PR is the way forward (as I do) voting no today is utterly counterproductive. A no vote is the best ammunition you can give the anti PR campaign for a generation or more. AV is inadequate but it is less shabby than FPTP which is increasingly being dumped as an electoral system in all sorts of contexts.

WalterFlipschicks · 05/05/2011 09:23

If voting was mandatory and everyone used their right to vote FPTP would work perfectly, in my opinion, the person with the most votes should win... simple, it's black and white, clear, no room for confusion.

I will be voting NO...

gawdblimey · 05/05/2011 09:27

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

because i have listened to the arguments for both sides and have decided thats the right thing to do

extendedsbigsister · 05/05/2011 09:27

In the present system many MP's don't have the support of 50% of the people voting. Under the proposed change every MP will have the support of 50% of the people voting.

Why would you vote NO just because some millionaire Old Etonian (and the BNP) tells you to?

jenny60 · 05/05/2011 09:29

Walter: no it wouldn't because even on a 100% turnout, the 30% + 30% who voted for parties A and B would still lose over Party C candidiate who got 40%. Also, we don't have compulsory voting!

raiseaneyebrow · 05/05/2011 09:29

I'm voting no. It ain't broke, don't fix it. No one in the country was exactly crying out for voting reform were they? Hardly top of most dinner party conversations?

Given that the parties most likely to be eliminated in round one are the extremists, (BNP for instance), the second choice votes of the people that vote them will surely go to another candidate who has similar beliefs, boosting THEIR chances of getting in

I mean you're not going to put 1 BNP, 2 Green are you?

QueenofDreams · 05/05/2011 09:31

I am going to vote no. Am worried I am in the minority though. Studied Government and Politics years back, including a section on electoral systems.

speakercorner · 05/05/2011 09:31

Why would you vote no, when that means agreeing with Cameron, Blunkett and Peter Stringfellow?

EightiesChick · 05/05/2011 09:36

Haven't read whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating stuff from other posts.

The 'one person one vote' line from the No camp has been effective and damaging. Everyone still only gets a vote counted in each round so some people are not getting more votes than others. But it has really put people off.

I think another major factor has been Clegg's unpopularity. I was out watching the royal wedding at a big screen outdoors near me last week, and when a shot of Clegg was shown, the crowd booed - this on a day when everyone's out to celebrate. He really has become incredibly unpopular and thus so has any cause he espouses.

Me and DH are voting yes FWIW.