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.

Yes I always vote. Voting is a privilege.

missing, stand your ground.

Will be voting no. Liberal democracy as experienced in the UK is far from ideal but at least it is democracy. AV and PR are not really are they? If you can't win a FPTP system then you need better arguments not a weaker system.

Newrumpus

Will be voting no. Liberal democracy as experienced in the UK is far from ideal but at least it is democracy. AV and PR are not really are they?

That is a fine example of twisted logic

Because . . .

Because under PR if you get 20% of the votes you get 20% of the seats. Ditto 40% = 40%

With FPTP you can get 38% of the votes and 70% of the seats.

With AV it's a bit more democratic than FPTP and far less democratic then full PR

FPTP is the least democratic option.

Unless you believe in representation.

The issue which neither of these 'systems' will address but which they hope to overcome is the lack of engagement. You can't go down the percentage line of argument without addressing this. You can't address this without decent arguments. Changing the system to make it seem more inclusive is just a con.

I will be voting.

giddy, my Mother votes Labour in her area to try and keep out the filth Tories, she would prefer to vote LD (or at least she did before Clegg sold us out). AV would eliminate the need for tactical voting

Changing the system to make it seem more inclusive is just a con.

Why do you use the word "seem", AV it is more inclusive and unlike full PR it keeps the constituency link.

Do you really think a new system will re-engage?

Do you really think a new system will re-engage?

For a while maybe but the apathy will then kick back in.

But if our politicians just had the guts to have a policy that was worth fighting for then all this petty percentage stuff would be irrelevant. It is disgusting to watch. None of the main parties can now suggest anything that the majority can get behind and truly support so instead they look for ways to tweak the figures.

Arguing about the system not the issues is like vultures picking at a dead democracy and it's sad.

But why do you think that the big parties don't want AV. They don't want change, they want the same old same old. Giddy says that AV will be just like FPTP. But if that were the case, why are they so against it?

Giddy, it's a Tory/Labour marginal the LD's have never done well but under AV she could vote LD and put Labour second knowing she could vote how she wants whilst still keeping the Tory out.

In my area the Tories would still get in no matter what system was used, you can put a blue rossete on a dog turd and it would win, in fact I think they did just that.

'Some politicians think it's pointless fiddling with a system'

But pointless fiddling is their forte, it's their paddling to stay still and pretend that something is happening.

newwave "FPTP is the least democratic option."

I do not entirely agree. I like the direct link between the MP and his/hers constituency, which will be removed under PR.

'Second choices can lead to bizarre results.'

Isn't that what shakes the system up and allows new possibilities?

In the consituency adjacent to mine there is every chance that neither of the usual parties will win as they only get 30 - 32% of the vote each - if the third party gets 20% of first votes, but most of the second votes of the smaller parties - ie. 68-70% of people have a leaning towards this party stronger than the main two, it will be a clear win for that party - and they will represent more of the people in the constituency as a result.

In my constituency it will probably mean an earlier switch to the other of the two main parties than the current huge swing needed - i.e. the party leading the constituency will change before everyone is so goddam sick of the current, they would rather have the BNP or the loonies in instead of the encumbent - i.e. politics will more closely match the views of the electorate.

I do think AV is a great opportunity for the UK to lead politics again - some of the views have been 'why isn't the world AV then' to which my answer is 'what happened to us? we used to lead the world and now we a scared to do anything unless america or somewhere else does it first' - we have become a timid nation of safe followers - why not be leaders again?

It is clear that there are a lot of lies being put about by the no campaign, some of which are getting repeated in good faith by people here. For example the one about how much it will cost.

The tactical voting thing is not quite a lie.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Under FPTP, in some constituencies, you have to vote for your second choice to keep your third choice out. This is crazy.

With AV it is theoretically possible that the order of elimination of small parties affects the final winner. AV is not a perfect system. But it is much better than FPTP: it is very unusual in reality for it not to come up with the same result as the "Condorcet" winner - i.e. the one who would win in a head to head with every other candidate.

Further up this thread there is an example where everyone who votes A puts B second; everyone who votes B puts C second and everyone who votes C puts A second. Never going to happen in real life.

PS I still want Clegg out more than I want AV. He's now going round with Cameron trying to sell the NHS changes instead of opposing them which is what his party asked him to do at their conference. Why doesn't he just change party instead of pretending to be a LD?