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.

I was going to vote no but then realised this is what Cameron wants so I will be voting yes.

I haven't researched it thoroughly enough to be sure yet - but my gut instinct is that I will be voting No. I don't think the existing system is perfect either, but there is no point swapping one flawed system for another.

you go right ahead dearie.
Dave Cameron vote no, me vote yes.
very well thought through.

Meanwhile for all those who can read without moving their lips, have a go at this:

"As the electoral commission confirms in it's description of AV it is perfectly possible for the winning candidate to have LESS than 50percent of the vote. In other words the whole claimed purpose of AV is frustrated by its practice. And its practice is grotesque.

Although not quite as disastrous as full blown PR, AV will guarantee permanent power for the same corrupt political class (from Kenneth Clarke and John Gummer to Ed Miliband and Keith Vaz to Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne) which has destroyed our economy, parliament and constitution over the last 20 years. And we should be under no illusions that once AV is in place full proportional representation will follow since the supporters of the latter will be helped into parliament by the former.

In Germany since the 2nd World War the Free Democrats (electoral but not ideological equivalent of Clegg's Lib Dems) have been in virtually every Government since the War. Hans Dietrich Genscher was Foreign Minister for many years because the electoral system gave him the power to dictate that to both major parties as the price of his joining them in coalition. Don't forget - the major political parties, given decisive power by our existing voting system, are themselves coalitions, except that they are open. Coalition Government s however are constructed in parliament AFTER an election and are covert arrangements made behind closed doors by party leaders, at the cost of voters and back benchers.

Most UKIP voters are fundamentally Tories or Labour and would return to those parties when sovereignty is restored. But Tory and Labour (ie the vast majority of British voters) will be greatly disadvantaged by AV while most anti UKIP voters are LiB Dems and Greens who are fanatical about AV because it will give those otherwise unelectable parties permanent seats in coalition governments. And with angry patriotic Socialists outside Labour and angry genuine Conservatives outside the Tory Party the leaderships of both parliamentary parties under AV will join with the Lib Dems and the Greens rather than cooperate with UKIP MPs - if there are any."

from here

Yes and and voting yes :)

And the No capmpaign is seriously dodgy, they won't even declare who is funding it No2Av campaigners refuse to publish donor details

everyspring -
and that means the mother of all problems if the winner has to get 50% - perfedctly possibly to come top in the poll, not get 50%, then what?

I second Gaston and will certainly be voting, and will be voting Yes for AV. Though as a Lib Dem voter last time, I will certainly not be giving them my vote next time around unless they cast off this Tory mantle they've become so addicted to, and the old-school liberal wing of the party with integrity (people like Evan Harris) get their hands on power again.

Completely disgusted with this coalition, and if we had AV - which is a fairly paltry system compared to real PR - this coalition would not be in power. God, someone get Cameron and Clegg to stop smarming their way around Britain and just sit down and think like people, not publicity-obsessed politicians. Not that Miliband is better, just less omnipresent.

I would have voted yes..
a) before the Lib Dems turned out to be such a bunch of wankers
and
b) if AV was true PR, which it is not.

I love this section from my link above.
This for all the Yes to AV posters:

"The reason why fewer and fewer people vote for the "major" political parties is not becasue of the electoral system but because British politics is morally and politically bankrupt. Most have given up voting altogether - although AV will not give the angry abstainers any box to tick! AV is a stitch up, a gross manipulation of the people in the guise of "giving them more votes". More votes means less power to the voter and more power to politicians behind the scenes - as the Condem coalition proves every day. AV has all the attributes of bad law - it is complicated, not generally understood, difficult to scutinise and therefore open to fraud, gives some voters more power than others and the rulers more power than the ruled."

I'm betting you still won't get it.
But as long as you feel good sticking one on Dave or Nick, you'll be able to pat yourselves on the back & say "yay me"

In 2/3 of constituencies, the elected MP does not have even 50% of the vote. Some get elected on less than 20% of the vote. 20%!! This is not a democratic system.

AV will ensure that politicians have to work harder as they must gain the support of a majority of the voters.

I am glad you have read up on the subject since our earlier discussion Giddy, but now you sound like the no campaign.

If an MP gains more than 50% of the vote, they have worked hard to win the support of those people and have policies that suit a majority of people. Well done, they deserve to be elected.

If they do not gain 50%, the second preference votes of minor parties are taken into account - eg. if you have voted Green, (or even BNP!) your vote is not wasted, it is instead counted towards your second choice.

what the hell are you talking about? all your 'disadvantages' of AV are using examples from first past the post! in fptp, if 52% of people vote tory - then the tory candidate may win, but typically the vote both of the tory candidate, and the second party is a false exaggeration of views - because people who would naturally support other perties tend to vote for the biggest one that would challenge their least favourite. with AV you may get the same result, but the stats from the election would tell you where the majority of views lie - and that would make politics change to reflect the views of the electorate.

If you are saying that AV is problematic because it would eg keep the tories out of scotland, please please explain why you think that is more likely than a system which has given no mandate for tories in scotland for years and years..

You are also saying elsewhere that one of the bad things about AV is that people will only use one preference - but how can you say that is bad under AV but good under a sytem that only allows you to vote like that?

Minority parties don't become kingmakers under AV - their voters are just more likely to be reached out to by bigger parties where now they can ignore them, because some of their votes are valuable - in a 'one more than the next guy' election - all you need to do is split your opposition - in AV you HAVE to reach out to them - hence the 'make politicians work harder' tag...

ALL VOTES ARE COUNTED MORE THAN ONCE IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE ROUND this idea that voters for small parties hold sway is ALREADY TRUE under first past the post -just that at the moment if the main parties can keep them voting for the small parties, they can guarantee that the opinion of those people is kept out of politics for ever. under AV they have more of a say as the candidate who is elected has to have a measure of support from more than 50% in the consituency (the electoral commission is referring to a situation where voters have expressed have no further preference after votiing for a small party - the winner must have 50% plus one vote of the votes still in the count - with FPTP all votes are eliminated immediately which is why it is possible (in 1/3 of seats in the country) to have around 30% (or less) returning an MP - which is often just the core voters for that party.

erm but it is perfectly possible not to get 50% under AV

has this still not yet sunk in?

Thats hillarious catinthehat, like they have spewed over the computer screen!

I like this quote:
"FPTP is a very simple system that doesnt alienate those who cant count."

(Actually thats probably why we started with FPTP, back in the days when people had so little education that many couldn't count.)

I like AV because it means you dont have to do tactical voting anymore -
you can say who you really support, even if they are a minority party, and your vote still counts.

eh?

Giddy's posts have been well written, well thought through and entirely sensible on this thread.

However, I'm counting down to the next knuckle scraper who says

UURRRGHH Dave Cameron vote no, me vote yes UUUUUUURGH

"AV...has the potential to return equally unfair results with added hassle of voting process and risk of coalitions "

yyyyyy!

Its true that this thread has been overwhelmingly "yes" for AV. Mumsnetters are a smart bunch. Some "No" supporters have tried to make up for this in other ways:

Giddy - "I couldn't be bothered to spout all my objections in one long dull post" - I know, you have written many long dull posts instead!