so are you going to bother to vote on the electoral reform referendum?

[easternstar]

Or not?

To be honest I don't think either AV or first past the post is the best method.

When I did my government and politics A-level donkey's years ago I always thought that the fairest method was to have larger constituencies and make up the difference with a party list system based on percentages.

Mubarak was not a socialist. Hitler was not a socialist. Donald bloody duck was not a socialist. OK?? Goddit? Now go and play with yer AV again there's a dear.

Ok, none of them were socialists. But Goofy surely was.

'No' is still (just about) favourite with the bookies, and the bookies are not often wrong... it's close though.

Definitely voting no. Do not want a permanent coalition government and especially annoyed that Clegg is basically trying to vote himself and his party who represent a small percentage of the electorate into power forever.

I'll be voting Yes. AV has it's faults, but it is better than FPTP: I do not want to have to tactically vote again.

Here's a simple video explaining AV

And here's why votes are not counted twice under AV - despite what the No campaign are saying: yfrog.com/h8gktp

Definitely voting No, as I think AV is ANTI democracy.

If an AV system made coalitions much more likely, we would be in the situation where the leader of the LibDems would be able to choose the PM and Government every time. The LIbDems would permanently be in government, despite coming last out of the main parties, and Nick Clegg would be literally able to choose who would be in power.

As we have seen, as soon as a coalition is formed, manifesto pledges go out of the window. So the public would not be able to choose the government, would have no idea about what policies would be implemented and would be totally disenfranchised.

The only way I would support it would be if a coalition included members of all the parties in the proportions of votes cast. Otherwise it is anti-democratic.

But @LilyBolero a more proportional system reflects how people voted: why should one party govern outright on 35% of the vote (as both main parties have done in the past)? And I write as a Labour supporter.

There is a problem with breaking promises: why did the LibDems break their unambiguous promise on tuition fees? They should have stuck to it, even if part of a coalition. I feel they will be democratically punished at the ballot box for this.

We should definitely all use our votes (unless totally ambivalent). I'm voting no to AV its a pile of pooh and a total waste of money.

But @chocolatehobnobs AV is makes it more likely that people in safe seats will use their vote. I've been a Labour supporter in a safe Tory seat with a LibDem coming second. There was no chance of Labour winning but a small chance for the Lib Dem.

Felt my vote for Labour was wasted, and a tactical vote for the LibDems was not great either.

Under AV I can put Labour 1, LibDem 2. And wouldn't feel disenfranchised.

Stroppydad, but let's say if you vote labour 1st choice, and labour come third. Then maybe by the time the 6th, 5th and 4th placed parties vote has been counted, the Tory has got 50%, so your second choice never gets counted, but the second choice of people who chose say, ukip, socialist worker and bnp does get counted. Does that not seem unfair to you?

I thought they were possibly crowds for hire too. But where are they now? They seem to have gone quiet. Very strange.

Still pondering but will probably vote "no" on the day.

I haven't read through the thread yet, so forgive me, I will read it properly after and see I've chnaged my mind.

I will be voting for AV, not because I actually want that method but as a way for me to say 'things must change'. I thought about spoilin gthe paper, but, I dunno, it won't actually mean anything unless the amount of spoilt papers is published as well. (Then I would seriously consider it TBH)
I want the opportunity to choose between PR, AV and first past the post and any other method that can be thought up. WHy haven't we been given this?
I want to vote for who I want to lead the country and it actually mean soemthing.
I live in a Very Safe Seat and my vote, as it stands, means fuck all.

@NimpyWindowmash, true, there are times where AV produces this kind of thing. Especially where there are lots of smaller parties. In the example you give, the Tories were probably pretty close to 50% anyway.

I admit AV is not perfect. AV+, AMS, STV, etc, may be better in this respect. But they are not on the table.

I agree, Twit. A vote for 'No' is a vote for no change, a vote for teh same old same old. There's got top be a better way, AV gives everyone a say.

"I will be voting for AV, not because I actually want that method but as a way for me to say 'things must change'."

I am not sure I understand. You don't want 'the method', but you'll vote "yes" because you crave "change"? Does it actually matter to you if it is a change for the better or the worse?

I have no problem with the "yes" vote as such there are v good arguments for it, but i find it strange that people want to vote "yes" (or "no") answering not a question regarding the voting system that will stay with us for the foreseeable future but the one they have in their own head, ie 'do I want LibDem to get rid of Clegg?' The quote above is a good argument why not everyone should be allowed to vote in the first place.

I think Twi means they would prefer to have a choice between the different voting systems, rather than just 2 of them.

I thought that too Twi, but AV is the system both labour and tories support as the alternative, so that is our choice.

Thinking about it, I prefer AV, because it will mean all MPs must have a majority of support from their constituents. So the extreme/loony parties will NOT be representing us (I would be so embarassed to be represented by the BNP!)

"I live in a Very Safe Seat and my vote, as it stands, means fuck all"
and will continue to mean exactly the same under AV
(guessing your incumbent has >50% vote)

cat - it depends how many of those were tactical votes. If the MP already has the true support of a majority of voters, they will keep their seat.

StroppyDad - I don't think AV IS a more proportional system at all. And tbh, given that it was AV that elected Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour party, despite most people wanting David Miliband, I think it doesn't give the desired results.

As I say, I would support it, IF the rules for a coalition were;
i) the PM must come from the largest elected party
ii) there must be representatives of all parties in ministerial roles, preferably in the proportions elected
iii) manifesto commitments may not be 'junked'.

It is a huge problem that a coalition agreement is never taken to the public. And it would be disastrous for the 3rd (ie smallest) party to be in a permanent position of power, and to have the decision over who will form the Government.

Hi Lily, AV is only concerned with how we elect our MP. Do you want MPs to have to gain a majority of support to be elected, or are you happy with MPs who get into parliament despite 71% of people voting against them?
I think this is wrong, and AV will solve the problem.

The other points you mention are interesting but are not related to AV.

AV will improve the way we elect our local MPs only. It will not dictate who get ministerial roles etc.

bemybebe how else do I say I want something better than what we have? Genuine question? Maybe I shouldn't bother, as you so nicely suggested?
I want, as I said the opportunity to actually have a say when I vote (preferrably PR), and I see having read the thread this may or may not be changed by having AV, so there might not be any point (vote wise) in voting for it except to hopefully move things towards PR. WHich is also under some doubt. So now I will go back and keep learning more about both.
And I shall continue to vote despite what you think of me.

I don't think AV will win because most of the media emphasis is likely to be on teh No vote. But if AV does in fact win, then I think people will start to find lots wrong with it and we will then move to an even better form of PR. If AV wins then there will be no turning back to FPTP, we will be on the way to good PR. The Euro elections already have some form of PR (not sure which). I think PR is inevitable, it's just a matter of when we get it.