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.

AV basically gives the Lib Dems a huge advantage - not the smallest parties who still won't get in. And makes coalitions far more likely which means parties can tear up their manifestos ? as the Lib Dems did this time as soon as they got a sniff of power. Which means politicians ignoring the voters and doing deals amongst themselves.

We currently have a coalition where the Tories are destroying the NHS in a clear breach of their manifesto - which promised 'no top down reorganisations' and the Lib Dems are ignoring their chief manifesto pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. AV means this kind of sticking two fingers up at the voters will be the rule, not the exception.

edam - AV will give a small boost to the LDs, but still they will end up with a much smaller proportion of MPs than they would get with PR. And it will make coalitions a little more likely as a result - not a lot.

But I agree 100% that this lot of LDs are giving coalition politics a very bad name.

Giddy - not putting a second choice is the equivalent of not voting in a second round of a run off election. There is no way it will stop any other party winning - just means you are not having a say once your party has been eliminated and others are making the choice for you.

Your second choice only gets looked at when your first choice has already been eliminated - so what you put second is irrelevant until your first choice is out of the running. So it is just wrong to say putting something as second choice could harm the first choices chances.

It is right though to be allowed to not number all the boxes. I would rather my ballot was thrown away than given to the BNP so I would always leave their box blank - even though it would never come to that.

Just thought I'd add another explainer. It's really basic but I think he's quite funny:

www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/referendum_2011.aspx

I know Clegg's a bit of a moron, but I still think a straight Tory government would have been a whole lot worse ? they wouldn't have even given us the opportunity to have a referendum on this. And it's basically impossible for the Lib Dems to stick to their pre-election manifesto entirely, given their situation.

I'll be voting Yes. At least that opens the floor to further reforms in the future. If we voted No it would become very very difficult to open the debate on voting systems ever again ? those opposed to it would simply say: "Well you didn't want it last time, what's the point in a second (expensive) referendum?"

As to the expenses, I don't have the figures but it's not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things

Also (sorry!), it doesn't have to give the Lib Dems a huge advantage. You don't have to fill in all the boxes!! If you want to vote for only one party, you can!! All this stuff about minority parties getting really strong is just scaremongering by people who don't want the system to change

yes we will be voting, but I live in an area where many wont bother. I a No voter.

Giddy - but that is not tactical voting. That is dishonest advertising to get people's second choices. There is no danger of accidental voting someone to beat your preferred party - you just make sure you put number 1 against your preferred; number 2 against who you would choose if your preferred has been eliminated, etc.

FPTP requires tactical voting; AV doesn't. It is clearly a better system of electing a local constituency MP. It should also lead to a slightly more representative house of commons. It would be a no brainer if we didn't want to punish Clegg and the LDs.

Biccies - but if you don't fill in all the boxes, your vote(s) count for less than someone who does.

AV is a far worse system that FPTP. Both are flawed but there is no point at all ditching one imperfect system for a seriously dodgy system.

Im going to vote. I feel its a vital, important thing to do. Spoiling or not voting is pointless and tells nobody anything.

Biggest thing for me against it is the fact that only 3 countries worldwide do it and those are considering removing it. Also its just on votes. And if you are interested in policies then you stand a larger chance of losing the party polices you like winning because of the move to include secondary items. Neither system hits the most important point, that the best policies get in, but I think the first past the post system probably has a greater chance of that than this AV thing. The only reason to choose AV is to see someone else than Tory or Labour get in. And frankly with Nick Clegg/Lib Dems I can't see a third option anymore. (Greens anyone?!)

Unless you count the Monster raving looney party. Which on actual history of ideas becoming a law at some point is probably a good party to pick!

I'll be voting YES, because it gives smaller parties more of a chance, and more importantly more of a voice to people voting for those parties.

I will be voting NO. I don't want minority parties holding majority parties to ransom. I don't want special interest 'pet' policies adopted in order to keep minority coalition parties sweet. I don't want tactical voting, dodgy campaigns for second choice votes, and how to vote sheets. I don't want the country run by weak coalition governments that can topple at any time.

newwave Wed 06-Apr-11 23:34:48

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.

thats realy funny - and I'm a Blue voter. ( Im going to change it around for future use, to Red as I live in a very safe Labour area)

catinthehat2,
You say "Kinnane....I hope you've read the thread? you might find you are in a minority of one if you really think it is !!fairer!!"

It wouldn't matter to me if I am 'in a minority of one' it dosn't sway my thinking in that voting yes is voting for a fairer system.

I don't think i've been living in a cave for the past few months, so am i the only one who finds the lack of publicity somewhat surprising? I'd like to vote, but don't feel i know enough about it to do so in an informed way. Don't get me wrong, i'll do my own research, but for something that's so crucial to democracy isn't it appalling that we have such a lack of public information about it? I haven't heard a single person even talking about it until i saw this thread!

Giddy - still don't believe it.

Tactical voting means doing something other than putting your parties in order of preference.

In FPTP people have vote tactically if they are in a constituency where their preferred party stands no chance - they have to vote for someone else or have their vote discarded.

You give me a scenario in AV where voting other than in order of preference is more likely to give the result you want.

ulp! This'll teach me to search for too long, but I found this sites.google.com/site/davidhughjones/ (first article) about AV

It addresses the fallacy that people will vote as they do now under AV AND the argument that if a consituency is 50% majority now it will remain so under AV - stats actually show that it won't as given a free choice many who vote conservative in order to ensure a right-ish will actually vote ukip or others and the same happens to labour...

Its v sciencey but I got the bit at the end OK. worth giddypickle looking at..

Paul - so how do you account for the Australian How to Vote cards telling people what order to put their preferences in? These aren't cards from the nice electoral people explaining the mechanics of voting, they are instructions from the parties saying 'this is how to keep the other guy out'. It's tactical voting under AV.

I'm voting no to AV, it's been designed to stop tactical voting. It won't work.
I would rather have a 'none of the above' box.

Rather than just writing it on the ballot sheet and it being counted I think it should be an actual box you can choose.

More people would probably vote as non attendance is also choice, albeit a silent one.

None of the above or no further candidate is expressed by no preference voting unless you really mean 'nobody at all'. I agree with this modification to AV, and think we should push for it after a positive outcome in the referendum - of course 'none'/'no confidence'/'no further candidate' could be imposed on first past the post too... if a referendum voted for it!

Silent non-attendance isn't really a choice - or at least can't be automatically read as one - as most non-voters just don't care about any politics or if they do can't get it together to vote on the right day.

Edam - having had a quick google I think the 'how to vote' cards are where parties do deals with each other, so two parties with similar views agree to ask their supporters to put the other one second. There seem to be rather more parties big enough to get some seats in Australia than here - be clear we are still very unlikely to get more than the current single seat for a party not in the main three (in England).

It is not about tactical voting.

As for a 'none' box I whole heartedly agree. Student Union elections all use AV and always have a 'RON' box - Re Open Nominations. If RON wins, the election has to be run again. RON can be redistributed like anyone else. In situations when your local MP is in your party of choice but you object to them based on what they have done / not done in parliament it would be great to be able to express a preference for someone new.