Yes, No, Meh? Alternative Vote Webchat with John Prescott and Katie Ghose, TODAY at 11am

[KatieMumsnet]

Yes, No, Meh? If you haven't already, the time to make your mind up on AV is getting closer, so we've invited John Prescott from the No camp and Katie Ghose from the Yes campaign to answer your questions about the referendum. Join us for a webchat at 11am, tomorrow, Wed 27 April.

Katie Ghose is an experienced campaigner and barrister and chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. As chair of the Yes to AV campaign, Katie has said 'the alternative vote is a small change that will make a big difference - making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say'.

John Prescott was deputy prime minister from 1997 - 2007, is now a life peer and is campaigning against AV, urging people to say No to 'hung parliaments, coalitions, broken promises and a weakening of democracy'.

Whatever your take on AV, hope you can join us to debate the pros and cons.

Mr Prescott, How can you defend a system that lets people gain power when most people voted against them?!

Do you believe in democracy?

AV is democratic because it choses the candidate that most people prefer.
Most people are happier with AV.

Katie thanks for your reponse, the more I read I am swaying just slightly to vote for the AV.

I can't understand why we are even having this debate at the moment. In the climate of cuts, whatever the cost of introducing AV surely it is not necessary to deal with it at this moment in time. The money can be put to better use.

Politicians should hang their heads in shame in having this idealogical debate at a time when a lot of people are facing real life crisises.

@ButterpieandCheese

I think I'm voting "no", but can I just point out that most people don't understand the system of voting in MPs anyway? So we get people saying things like "we didn't vote for Gordon Brown", and I want to slap them and say that, no, you voted for your MP, who is a member of a party, and the leader of the party (voted for by the members of the party) which has the most MPs, gets to be PM. So, if you voted Labour, then you voted to allow Labour to choose the prime minister.

IME, most people don't get it. I once had to explain it to a group of first year politics students.

Who doesn't understand how to number candidates 1,2,3? This is about having more say over electing your local MPs. Is it right that most of us have MPs that we didn't vote for?

ButterpieandCheese, I agree that people get very confused come election time. I think we get too influenced by the American style of voting (voting for a person, rather than the party as a whole) so we end up basing our votes on the leader rather than the party policies.

Websites like www.scottishvotecompass.org/ are really useful (well, in this case useful for those voting in the Scottish elections - I'm sure there are Westminster/Wales/NornIron equivalents) in that they point you to the appropriate parties that most tie in with your own beliefs to main political concerns.

@WildhoodChunder

Do you think AV would encourage those standing for election to work harder to communicate why we should vote for them, and in turn would this lead to better voter turn-out?

AV raises the bar for politicians to get and keep their jobs so they will have to work harder for our votes.

At the moment, parties can target the swing voters in the key marginal seats and effectively ignore everyone else.

The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that the last election was actually decided by fewer than half a million voters. With AV, candidates will have to do more than ?just enough to win? and will have to speak to more of us.

@katieghose

[quote Pram1nTheHall]

Katie, wouldn't you rather just have STV?

John, do you or don't you believe that one person, one vote is pretty worthless when votes don't have equal value? FPTP massively privileges some votes over others and is inherently anti-democratic. Is there any system you think is better than FPTP?

There is only one choice on the ballot paper. Change versus more of the same old politics. The Yes campaign is supported by people who support proportional representation, and those, like Jack Straw, who do not. What we are all agreed on is that First Past the Post no longer suits the way we vote today and that AV is a small step to make our politics better.

[/quote]

This debate has been marred by excessive attention given to personalities and excessive interpretation of existing facts and change can be much more fundamental under fptp, reflecting the electorate's wishes than the compromises involved in coalitions.

'You can get fundamental change with FPTP, which is what politics is all about.' Only if your idea of 'fundamental change' is 'a Labour landslide' or 'a Tory landslide', surely? My idea of fundamental change would be for the 10% or so of Green voters in this country to have 10% representation. How's that going to happen under FPTP? In all honesty, it's just not is it?

FPTP only empowers voters if the vote Lab or Tory. W00t!

@thebestisyettocome

I can't understand why we are even having this debate at the moment. In the climate of cuts, whatever the cost of introducing AV surely it is not necessary to deal with it at this moment in time. The money can be put to better use.

Politicians should hang their heads in shame in having this idealogical debate at a time when a lot of people are facing real life crisises.

There's a very serious point here but again tends to show some exaggeration.
Look it does cost more to run AV - the referendum costs 90 million pounds - and Mr Clegg in Sheffield was not prepared to to find the 60 million needed to help revive the steel industry in the city. Or you could have thousands more nurses, doctors, primary schools for the cost of the AV referendum. You're right, it's the wrong priority.

Mmhh, you've got me thinking now. I would love for the seat I live in, to be more hotly contested.

Thanks pram1intheHall, Ill try posting it again:

It seems to me that people often like several parties - I would have been happy with Labour, Lib dem or Green party MPs representing me. But with FPTP I can only vote for one, and so I have to guess who everyone else is likely to vote for.
But it seems Tories generally are only happy with one party, and so their vote is not split.

Do you agree that FPTP splits the voters, denying them their prefered candidate, and letting a minority (but united) party gain power unfairly?

@JohnPrescott

[quote DuelingFanjo]

Are the BNP ever going to get their feet umder the table under any voting system? Not in most places and if that changes then surely hat change would be seen using AV too?

PR, which is what AV's about strengthens minority parties, you can see that all over Europe and minority parties can change governments overnight by changing their alliance and the electorate have no say. Witness Germany, France, Belgium and even Australia whose last labour govn was helped into power by the Greens and 2 farmers - probably good the farmers and the environment but not much about people power.

[/quote]
AV is not PR - let's debate what's on the table, which is a simple choice between first past the post - which doesn't work anymore and AV which is an upgrade. Australia have had fewer hung Parliaments than us in the last 100 years.

I like being in a safe seat though - it was one of the reasons I moved here. I don't like change, I like to know where I stand and that I have an MP who has time to help me with any problems and campaign for the concerns of the area, rather than messing about point scoring against other candidates. Of course, it is a bonus that my MP is from my chosen party, but she has done loads of good work, and I think a lot of that is down to the fact that she can concentrate on her job.
Plus, if I had had a second vote, I would have probably given it to the Lib Dems, and I would have raised the possibility of being to blame for the current problems, so I'm glad I only got one. At the end of the day, only one MP can be elected, and a lot of second and third choices will go to single issue parties or ones that don't have much to back up thier policies.

@MrsKwazii

A question at a slight tangent for John and Katie, what would you both think of having 'None of the above' also added to ballot papers? This would give all voters the chance to really put down their preference at all elections - from parish/town up to MP level.

For example, at some recent local council elections in my area, friends only had candidates from Conservatives and Labour to choose from, so had no choice at all. Tinkering with the election system with AV still doesn't mean that everyone's vote will count.

Its not what we are campaigning for. I think the task for us is to make MPs more accountable and for more people to feel their votes count and that is what AV will do.

It won?t solve all problems with politics but it is a small, positive change we can make.

@ButterpieandCheese

I like being in a safe seat though - it was one of the reasons I moved here. I don't like change, I like to know where I stand and that I have an MP who has time to help me with any problems and campaign for the concerns of the area, rather than messing about point scoring against other candidates. Of course, it is a bonus that my MP is from my chosen party, but she has done loads of good work, and I think a lot of that is down to the fact that she can concentrate on her job.
Plus, if I had had a second vote, I would have probably given it to the Lib Dems, and I would have raised the possibility of being to blame for the current problems, so I'm glad I only got one. At the end of the day, only one MP can be elected, and a lot of second and third choices will go to single issue parties or ones that don't have much to back up thier policies.

Under AV you can plump for one candidate as now - Butterpieandcheese - this sounds like your preference - but if you want to have a choice you can.

@HHLimbo

Mr Prescott, How can you defend a system that lets people gain power when most people voted against them?!

Do you believe in democracy?

AV is democratic because it choses the candidate that most people prefer.
Most people are happier with AV.

I do believe in democracy, yes, but to me an important part of democracy is the people choosing a parties policies as in their manifesto. With fptp that's real people power not coalition nonsense. EG I had a card in the 1997 election called hee pledge card which promised to reduce unemployment, increase public services etc. I was able to fight tje election in 2001 and later on how we delivered. Mr Clegg had a pledge card in the last election, highlighted in TV debates and explained his fundamental promise not to increase student fees. When challenged, he said he couldn't keep his promise because of the coalition deal. So was that people power or politician power. btw you might feel you vote for the candidate you wanted via AV but what influence do they have on a coalition? They now spend their time explaining why they cannot deliver what they promised.

I'd love to live in a safe seat if it was the party I was voting for too .

@JohnPrescott

[quote katieghose]

[quote Pram1nTheHall]

Katie, wouldn't you rather just have STV?

John, do you or don't you believe that one person, one vote is pretty worthless when votes don't have equal value? FPTP massively privileges some votes over others and is inherently anti-democratic. Is there any system you think is better than FPTP?

There is only one choice on the ballot paper. Change versus more of the same old politics. The Yes campaign is supported by people who support proportional representation, and those, like Jack Straw, who do not. What we are all agreed on is that First Past the Post no longer suits the way we vote today and that AV is a small step to make our politics better.

[/quote]

This debate has been marred by excessive attention given to personalities and excessive interpretation of existing facts and change can be much more fundamental under fptp, reflecting the electorate's wishes than the compromises involved in coalitions.

[/quote]

AV makes it easier to kick out politicians who aren't up to the job. They can't hide behind minority support. Quite simply, they have to aim for 50% to earn and keep our support.

What does Katie Ghose have to say about my point that this referendum (whtever the merits or otherwise) is stupidly timed given the financial difficulties we are in.

Does she care that it is diverting money from people in need or is her political agenda more important?

AV DOESN'T PRODUCE MORE COALITIONS

Will someone at MNHQ please give Mr Prescott a poke next time he says that

Please could you answer my question of 11.05am. Frankly I'm so on the fence that if either of you answers me you'll have my vote!

@HHLimbo

Thanks pram1intheHall, Ill try posting it again:

It seems to me that people often like several parties - I would have been happy with Labour, Lib dem or Green party MPs representing me. But with FPTP I can only vote for one, and so I have to guess who everyone else is likely to vote for.
But it seems Tories generally are only happy with one party, and so their vote is not split.

Do you agree that FPTP splits the voters, denying them their prefered candidate, and letting a minority (but united) party gain power unfairly?

Hi HHLimbo, you've hit the nail on the head. Most of us shop around; we're not as tribal as we were. You can show your support for anyone you think is up to the job. It's not the 1950s - the voting rules need to catch up with the voters.

I'm still confused.com - still leaning towards the 'No' vote but that's because I am not yet convinced AV is a credible replacement.

Sorry!

@katieghose

Hi, a few of you have asked about safe seats. AV will cut the number of safe seats which gives parties more reason to campaign in those areas and talk to us about our concerns. Under first past the post, you only matter to politicians if you happen to be one of the few hundred thousand people living in a very competitive, swing, seat. That's not right - we should all count and have our say. AV will make sure that where ever we live, politicians will have more reason to knock on our doors and talk to us. mumutd - you say you live in a safe Tory seat - whoever you support, AV gives you more of a say because you can express a preference and the same goes for you, Butterpieandcheese under AV your vote will count for more because you pick your favourite but if they are knocked out you still get to express a preference about who should win.

Everyone agrees that over a third of the seats at the last election were MPs elected with over 50% of the vote. Does that mean now, that the argument of working harder will not apply to them. Because they would still be in safe seats under AV?