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 can't understand why anyone would vote yes. but then I can't vote in this referendum anyway, although I do have to live with the consequences.

[needs to sort out flippin passport.]

All the people voting for the smaller parties the BNP or the WhoFlungDung party whose votes currently don't matter - will now count. Is this what we want? Really?

Carmina - there will be a fair few because many people voting for one of the smaller parties will most likely vote 'upside down'. Going through the smaller parties before they get to two/three bigger parties.

Shiney - why?

In a seat held by the Conservatives with the Lib Dems second, under AV I would vote Greens 1, Lib Dems 2. I think a lot more people would consider voting for local issue indie candidates too, as it would mean they were registering their priorities without pissing away their vote.

Chippingin:

If the BNP thought that get even a sniff of success out of the AV system they'd be pushing for it - they're not.

In some areas ( namely Oldham ) the BNP are fairly popular and they could win a seat with say 35% of the vote - ( that's not beyond the realms of impossibility ) however, they're unlikely to ever get 50% of the vote anywhere - even in their strongest areas - so AV would be a political nightmare for the BNP.

everyones vote should count

so a big fat yes for AV

I have just cast my no.

The BNP being against something is usually a pretty good indication that it's worth looking into.

ELNP: David Cameron is Against it too.

Carminaburana: Yes, funny that. Given that he himself was elected to the head of the party using AV AND he also admitted that the voting system was "broken" as it currently stands.

One angle that I haven't heard being discussed:

Under AV it would be quite possible for there to be no 'winner' with over 50% of the total vote. This could happen if the votes are split in a certain way, eg if the 3rd, 4th and 5th parties put each other as second choices, or if a significant number of people put no second preference.

Would there be an exemption to allow the FPTP winner to be elected in that situation? Or would they have a byelection to try again?

Melpomene,

While that is true, it is also fiendishly unlikely. So Candidate A polls 40% exactly) of the vote. Candidates B, C and D all poll EXACTLY 20% of the vote (because if one of those candidates was even ONE vote below that 20% (i.e getting 19.9999999%) his candidacy would disappear and the second votes would then be allocated, this would upset the balance and results would proceed as normal.) and the choices of those people who voted B, C and D were all distributed in such a way that no one could continue, then Candidate A would win in FPTP fashion.

But there is a reason why this isn't brought up: it has never happened.

A big fat No -
We have had different systems in Scotland and in general they have been a mess (lots of 'spoiled' ballot papers a few years ago as well as a huge confusing choice of 20+ candidates ...) at least current system is easy to understand...
FPTP isn't particularly fair but then this is not the system to replace it with...just a bodge.

Having said that I sometimes think there should be a test before you are allowed to vote...someone I knew voted labour in 97 mainly because they (educated to degree level +, on a salary of 30+k and no responsibilities) thought they should get free eye tests and Blair would restore them...

You wouldn't need to have B, C and D polling excatly the same though; you'd just need to have a situation where the 2nd (and/or 3rd) preferences aren't enough to boost any candidate over the threshold.

You could have something like:
Tories 35
Lab 22 (2nd choice: 15 lib, 7 put no 2nd choice)
Libs 16 (2nd choices: 5 Tory, 6 Lab, 5 put no 2nd choice)
UKIP 14 (2nd choices: 5 Tory, 4 BNP, 5 no 2nd choice)
BNP 13 (2nd choice: 8 UKIP, 2 Tory, 3 no 2nd choice)

OK, that's a bit simplified because in reality you would also have 3rd/4th preferences floating around, but I don't think that example is incredibly far-fetched.

First round: BNP eliminated
Tories 37
Lab 22
Lib 15
UKIP 22

Second round: Libs eliminated
Tories 42
Lab 28
UKIP 22

Third round: UKIP eliminated
Tories 44
Lab 28

No Labour voters have put Tories as 2nd choice. No candidate reaches 50%.

BTW I'm not saying that's a big argument against AV (you could obviously have a tie under FPTP as well). I just thought it was interesting that even under AV you won't necessarily always have a clear mandate.

OK, fair enough.

"I could believe firmly in the Bread and Circuses Party, but if that is not an option, having had the fewest votes, I can transfer my vote to a party that is my preferred option of those left. It wouldn't mean that I believe any less in the B&CP. Or when I go to the tea shop, if Darjeeling is on the menu, but there isn't any left, can't I ask for Earl Grey instead?"

I find it somewhat different and just voted no because if I go to the 'tea shop', ask for tea and end up with coffee I want to be able to complain that coffee wasn't what I asked for and point out for the next 4-5 years how horrible the coffee I hadn't asked for is, instead of knowing I did ask for it if tea, hot chocolate and apple juice weren't available.

While numbers-wise AV does end up as one vote each, the way it works gives more choice to some people than others - I highly object to a BNP supporter being effectively able to say "You want to drink tea? Well, I want you to have to drink arsenic..... oh, that choice didn't win? Ok, I want you drink coffee then"

Carmina - I didn't say the BNP would get in. What I said was that their votes are currently 'wasted' on a BNP vote. With AV they would get a second (possibly 3rd, 4th, 5th) vote - so their vote will now count and quite frankly - I'm happier with FPTP where people who would vote BNP are essentially not getting a vote!

The BNP bogeyman has had quite an airing. But if you look at Green candidate Caroline Lucas... she won her seat last year with a vote share of 31%. To get the 50% required she'd have had to be put 2nd place by all of the LibDem, UKIP and Socialist Party voters, plus a fair chunk of the tory voters whose party came third. That would have probably not happened and so we wouldn't have a Green MP now if AV had been in place. AV may result in an even more bland HP than we have now....

ChippingIn

I'm sorry - but you are mistaken. As I said, if the BNP thought they'd be more successful under the AV system they'd be pushing for it. Do you think they haven't sat and thought it through? - if you can spend 10 minutes working out a few simple calculations I'm sure the BNP can. They know they're not the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th choice in most cases, so AV will see them kicked out in the first round. You vote BNP or nothing - ie; most BNP voters are not open to negotiation and do not want an 'alternative' ( although they're more likely to side with UKIP and the Tories )
The BNP would love PR as they'd do quite well under that system / but that's unlikely to happen - so FPTP is their best bet for reasons already explained.

Smaller parties can win under FPTP - ( although rare )
Caroline Lucas won didn't she.

I am not mistaken - you are not listening.

People who vote for BNP will then have another vote once their party is taken out of the equasion with AV - with FPTP they do not have this option.
Whether they use it or not is just speculation. The fact that they will then have another vote under AP is fact.

BNP as a group may or may not be more succesful under AP - I don't give a toss because they will never be a threat to the main parties. The fact of the matter is that then the people who vote for BNP will have another vote instead of their vote counting for nothing.

Er? - what the hell are you talking about?