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.

TBH If anyone cannot understand AV then I have serious doubts about their competence to vote

Giddy - so you mean you dont want to elect someone who is liked by more than 50 % of people. How strange..

You would prefer a system where someone can get elected with only 20% of the vote? Hated by 80 % of the people? Do you know what democracy means?

No Giddy you are wrong and that is a false example.

You dont have to vote for someone you dont like. Therefore the person elected will be liked and actively voted for by the majority of people.

Giddy - in your example, the candidate elected was liked by all voters, and voted for by all voters. How lovely! Are you showing that AV will make politicians work harder so that they are liked by all of their constituents? That is a great outcome of AV.

Giddy I am sorry for you that there is only one candidate/party you feel you can support. Perhaps with AV, more candidates/parties will try to appeal to you as they will need your vote more.

Remember that until other candidates work harder to appeal to you and gain your support, you do not have to vote for them under AV.

wow its weird - people who are 'no' seem to be anti because it doesn't provide them with a predictable outcome - you aren't supposed to choose the fairest voting system on whether or not it gives you a predictible outcome - no wonder the safe seat MPs are nervous! they want it easy!

BTW fact fans, if the count goes to a second round EVERYONE'S vote is counted again - each person has one vote! As for the idea that it will mean a liberal democrat party in power every time, that is just ridiculous - we have one like that now - and it came about because of First Past the Post - how can you have not got that!

What's making me vote yes is the fact that the No campaign is headed by politicians whose brand of politics is 'lying, hope the mud sticks, then lie some more' as in 'it means some people have up to four votes' - lie, 'It will cost £250 million' - Lie 'it will mean the BNP get in' - lie, 'It will produce a situation like Belgium' - lie , 'it will mean more coalitions' - lie, 'If we don't vote for AV there will be a new children's wing built at Birmingham' - lie, 'If we vote NO to AV there will be thousands of pieces of Body Armour bought for our troops' - lie, 'If we vote NO to AV there will be more police on the streets ' - lie.

Personally I think we should hold the NO campaign to account - make them pay for all the things they promised would be build or paid for with the fictitious 'money we are saving' if they win.

Bloody lying politicans trying to keep things as they are to maintain their two party behemoth system that means politicians can have a career in politics without doing any other job - its disgusting that even in these delicate times they are using 'the elecotrate is stupid and will believe what we say mwahahaha' is not the kind of polititican I want in power, so I will be voting against that breed and putting 'Yes'.

BTW the figures on 'more spolied ballot papers' come from Australia where voting is compulsory and preferences are compulsory in AV here YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PUT PREFERENCES.

In Australia, many register their distaste of compulsory voting by spoiling ballots - but the percentage of spoiled ballots in Australia is far lower than the percentage of people here who never vote- the idea that AV produces more spoilt ballot papers is another dire and deliberate misunderstanding of the AV system being promulgated by politicians who think we are too stupid to check - its disgraceful.

I'm going to vote 'no' because I think AV is worse than FPTP. And because I am revolted at the idea of rewarding Clegg for betraying his voters and breaking not just a manifesto pledge but a specific pledge he got all his MPs to sign individually just to make it clear it was a serious promise. (I didn't vote Lib Dem so he didn't betray me but I object to any politician being that blatant a liar.)

There are legitimate criticisms of FPTP. But the answer to that isn't to go for something even worse and less proportional. If you want PR, argue for PR, not this dog's breakfast.

It's like House of Lords reform - sounds like a good idea, legitimate criticisms of the old system of hereditary peers. But what we've ended up with is even worse - a system entirely dependent on patronage and millionaires buying seats in our legislature with their donations to political parties.

Btw, I live in a safe seat where my vote doesn't count at all. So I have every reason to object to FPTP. Doesn't mean I'm prepared to vote for something even worse.

Giddy, you obviously don't understand AV - if you are voting first pref labour and second pref socialist party, the outcome under FPTP you will get is typically as if you had voted 1 labour , 2 conservative. Under AV if Labour and conservative are the main parties in your constituency, then it is likely that your first pref and your tory voting counterparts would have their first pref counted every time. If you had put socialist party 1 and Labour 2, and half the other other left-leaning people did too, in the first round Socialist worker party would have more support than usual expressed, which would give a powerful signal to whoever gets in that the constituency is moving towards socialist party, but then their second prefs would be counted only if no absolute winner - and then Labour would get the kick it needs to keep out the tories in that example.

Lib dem third prefs fromtories would only be counted if UKIP got more votes than the tories in each round - which would be a dramatic swing par excellence - and highly unlikely unless UKIP really were a strong force in that area.

Missingfriend - Good point, the 'no' campaign is full of lies, trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and mud slinging. This is exactly the sort of politics I hate! I would be very happy that AV meant we got rid of this sort of politician.

Giddy - The party that has made the effort to appeal to both these 2 people, and has designed policies that both these people like will get elected. This is a good outcome, and we would only get it under AV.

For people who say that they are going to vote no to a new voting system because Clegg supports it need to grow up - this is far more important that petty dislikes -

one other reason I am voting Yes is to send a message to this coalition that I do not like what they are doing, but the major reason is that I want constituency results to reflect the candidates where most people have some measure of support for the MP that represents them.

Missing - I think it's entirely relevant to take into account Clegg's dishonesty. I wouldn't buy a second-hand car from him, why would I trust him to make fundmental changes to our entire democratic system?

HHLimbo - bit rich of anyone to claim the 'no' campaign is full of lies when the 'yes' campaign has Clegg. There's one person here who has broken not only a manifesto pledge but a specific pledge he got all his MPs to sign separately to convince voters. And he's the one who has got us a referendum on AV.

oh god this is frightening! ...

AV - started in Australia in 1918. Proposed twice by Sir Winston Churchill for the UK, was approved in the commons, but House of Lords blocked it. Electoral Reform society have been proposing it for years, Conservative Campaign for democracy similarly, Labour had a referendum on AV in its manifesto, Labour has had an internal campaign for electoral reform that has proposed AV as one solution for years. Lib Dems actually generally support PR as being the best system to get their faces into parliament. This isn't 'Nick Clegg's idea' at all.

For the record, australia have always been ahead of us in terms of democratic representation - had votes for all men ahead of us, had votes for all women before we did - we are lagging in this democracy thing! AV is used by all political parties and for electing the speaker of the commons, by Unions, by Building Societies, in Student politics, etc etc.

• indeed in most elections where having the support of most constituents is important.

In fact, if all these election types are counted AV is far and away the most dominant electoral technique in the world!

edam - I can see that Nick Clegg is clearly more important to you than anything else in this world - why not write him a letter directly?

BTW clegg breaking promises is not part of the pro argument, but lies are the only components of the NO campaign - that is why it so disgusts me.

And actually Clegg kept his promise for electoral reform, so that wasnt a lie. Its true that the lib dems prefered PR as this would get them more seats, but he still supported AV because that is what most people wanted (labour and tories prefer this)

Missingfriend - Thanks for the historical background - v interesting.

I'll be voting no.

I'll be voting yes, would prefer PR of course, but at least AV is better than nothing. There was only a few hundred votes between parties in my constituency, so it would have made a big difference here.

but I see it as a bit of win win situation I'm not sure that the coalition will last long either way:

If the yes camp wins; the tories will be unhappy that they have given too much power to the lib dems.

If the no camp wins; the lib dems will have no reason to keep playing with the tories.