Shocked! - I have been reading about this AV referendum!

[Heroine]

I am really shocked! I have been reading about this AV referendum, and have found out that not only are the people against it largely people with really safe seats (eg Ian Duncan Smith) but also that a) their main campaign is 'It will be really expensive' - but they are saying this by making up an idea that the country will 'have' to buy counting machines (that are only used in America for first past the post) and then adding the cost of the referendum itself which is actually the cost of the local election that the AV question will be added to i.e they are adding the costs in twice and then exaggerating by lying. What's worse is they are peddling this out to voters in the hope they won't check!!!! Whats even worse is that its working!!! see [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358914/Alternative-vote-Yes-campaign-activists-breaking-rules-cold-calling.html#ixzz1Ea4AVMUW this] I mean I do dispair for the stupidity of some of the electorate, but for politicians to use this so brazenly.. grrr

Its bloddy brazen if nothing else and it just shows how much contempt the more establishment and conservative politicians have for the electorate - it just makes me to think they can get away with this BS

I have just also read the DM after my indie over a coffee, and there is an article in there saying that the 'No' people have also been regularly complaining to whoever regulates canvassing (Information Commission perhaps??) to try to block any campaign going ahead for yes... Its just absolutely disgusting and definitely pushing my vote in the way of AV.

I hate the way politicians just put out bollocks figures in order to frighten us, and don't care if they are true or not, its bloody Iraq war all over again.

Please god I hope we get some integrity back into politics soon, its draining me it really is...

this (sorry!)

Well, I'm against AV for completely different reasons.
I want politicians who say what they think and do not try to appeal to the widest possible audience.
Small parties do better under first past the post than they will under AV. Caroline Lucas admits that she would not be our first Green MP if we had had AV at the last election.

you want MPs to NOT represent their consituents!! that's just amazing to me... no wonder I get mystified by politics!!

I think the opposite is true re greens though, all my friends tacitly support the greens and say they wish it were worth voting for them - and I have pals who are tory horse-riding freaks as much as leftie community workers. What amazes me is that if the current system outcomes are to be believed, all conservatives would put conservative 1 and labour 2 and all labour 2 then conservative 1, and then all the swings will just alternate between the two - as that is what happens to our government,

I'm pretty sure that isn't how it is, I think the greens will get loads of second pref. votes and more first pref as people atually think 'I don't like conservative, don't really want labour back, and do quite like greens' so I don't think its a cut a dried as trying to guess from the last election.

I am a bit of a political novice, but I have always wanted to be able to put preferences in at the ballot box, or even be able to put a big 'anyone but that idiot' vote in, so I am moving for all the time..

But aren't you even a little bit annoyed that people can make up figures with this much brazenness and publish them in order to frighten people when there isn't even half a justification for them??!

You don't seem frightened by the erroneous figures? Do you think you're atypical?

I want politicians to say what they think so that I know who I'm really voting for. I will then vote for the least awful.
Caroline Lucas's argument is that she got elected on 31% of the vote in Brighton. Under AV she would need to get 50% after second preferences etc. She does not think she would have made it.
I agree with Clegg that AV is a "miserable little compromise". We should be debating full PR or first past the post. I would find that a hard decision.

Thats not an argument for making stuff up though is it (still )!

Quite honestly, I don't think 'extra cost' is going to be a big decider for anyone voting for or against AV. It isn't for me, anyway. As for the rest, I'd like all sides to campaign as robustly and fairly as possible. I don't think it's firing anyone's imaginations at the moment and everyone will have to pull out the stops to get voters to take any kind of interest whatsoever.

I'm not great at this, but if she got 31% of first preference votes, that means that her rivals got less, and she would only need 19% of votes from eliminated candidates (i.e those with the least votes) to get in, and her rivals would need even more, but it looks like with AV more people would vote for what they really want so she might have got more first preferences anyway.. wouldn't she??

All I know is that she has said that she does not think she would have won based on her canvassing returns etc.

I like first past the post - will make kicking out the Tories all the more pleasing!

I think that the green canvassing returns would be less comprehensive than those parties with big party machines - in my area the tories were bussing in people from all over the country to do canvassing, leafletting and knocking up (I hope that's what its called??? When they run around knocking on doors getting people to vote?? - I got knocked by all three main parties due to being nice to everyone at the door!!).

It amused me greatly to see the amount of out of the area tweedies at the polling stations - one that I got chatting to was from hertfordshire and i am in Birmingham!! :)

You may want to think long and hard before altering the current electoral system, as it works.

Belgium has full PR and no government since last June as it is impossible to form one.

ST - the Belgian comparison is slightly misleading as our referendum is not about full PR. AV is unlikely to result in a similar situation.

Plus you say the current system works. I guess that depends on your definition of working. Two thirds of our current MPs didn't have a majority if voters supporting them in their own constituency. With AV every MP would have to have majority support.

Also if candidates have to chase second and third preferences they are less likely to base their campaign on negative messages about other parties as they don't want to annoy voters who support those parties. Experience in other countries shows campaigns become more positive, focusing on what a party can do rather than what another party can't. For me that would be addressing what I like least about political campaigns.

Finally, AV may have hurt Caroline Lucas' chances but it also damages the chances of extremist parties. If a party can't gain
majority support in a constituency then why should it represent that constituency in parliament? That goes for the Greens or UKIP or the BNP.

scaryteacher - that's a completely irrelevant point, Canada has had first past the post since voting was introduced and nearly always have a hung parliament! Australia has preferential voting and has had fewer hung/coalition parliaments than us.. plucking belgium out of the air is really silly!

I do despair at people who do this 'I know a man who.. therefore all men do... ' type of 'fact finding. That example is like saying I don't spend money here because I've heard that in some countries the pound is WORTHLESS, WORTHLESS I tells 'ee - its just daft x 10.

I can feel myself getting dragged into this far too much ...but people who support the curent system don't seem to even care about facts or the views of the elctorate- that's really telling!

(thanks to the independent for those facts.. yay!)

Oh that is silly 'least Hated' equals 'most loved' just as 'least worst' is the same as 'best'.

I think the 'miserable compromise' is referring to a compromise in a campaign for proportional representation - which I think means even less connection with to who you are voting for as the MPs can come from national pools and I would be opposed to that.

As for your pref. to only vote for the one you agree with, you can do that under AV if you like so what's the issue??

I don't really understand the boundary changes, I must admit that I thought that Labour wards are traditionally bigger populations and i would have thought that would favour the conservatives? (i.e. more MPs per head of population??) anyway whichever it is, it seems that we are down to the same slganeering and misinformation that spoilt the last general election :(

btw I made the mistake of asking a physics chap about election methods ...:) he got all hung up on percentages (bless) and then his GF said 'its like x-faactor' :) it made me laugh!!

I'm very confused about AV. I think I understand the principle and I think I quite like it but when I apply it to the situation in my constituency then I suddenly find I don't like it.

To keep party politics out of it, The Dog party has held this seat for decades, the Cat party and the Bear party get more votes combined but the Dog candidate always gets in. It's always a three-way fight for this seat.

We've tried tactical voting. Last year DH voted Bear and I voted Cat but we merely cancelled out each other's votes.

My problem is that I always want to vote Cat and tactical voting makes me uncomfortable. I'm pleased to register my vote for Cat even if it is never likely to get me the result I want. But, whilst AV might unseat the Dog, I don't want my vote to be transferred to Bear. I really, really don't.

Can anyone tell me if AV is more or less likely to get my candidate of choice into Westminster?

Sorry. When I previewed the above I thought the animals made it seem silly but hit post too soon.

I should have explained that Bear almost always comes second in this seat.