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.

Woohoo - Glasnost! My thoughts exactly. Call me a dreamer (and plenty on this thread will), but when Labour move back to the left and get in power again, I want them to have the mandate to make the changes needed. That can only happen under FPTP.

so AV gives people a stronger mandate at consituency level, and may result in the same result, yet also gives a weaker government than FPTP? some of you are weird thinkers! :)

I'll be voting "Yes" - but only becasue it is a step in the right direction.

Ironically, on the same day I will be casting a vote (or rather votes ) in exactly the "preferred" way that Easternstar mentions in her OP: ie for my constituency MSP (FPTP) and for my "list" MSP for the region (PR). It does wonders for representation/making your MSP accountable: when you have a problem that you wan to raise with your MSP, you write to them both and then they fall over themsleves to be seen to be the one who "solves" it.

"Its disappointing that wubblyB has misunderstood my post to read that I am somehow advocating AV+ - I am not, just pointing out that the Jenkins commission did advocate an AV based system,just thought the change could go further. If the electorate thinks it should after seeing AV work, then it would need a referendum in order to be implemented - that is the pledge for all electoral reforms"

An AV based system, yes, but not this, not what is being offered here. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Jenkins Commission came out in favour of this, they did not.

See here Their conclusion was "The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives. Fairness in representation is a complex concept, as we have seen in paragraph 6, and one to which the upholders of FPTP do not appear to attach great importance. But it is one which, apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which at the last election might have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement. We therefore reject the AV as on its own a solution despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence."

Not sure what you are challenging here - they did support an AV system with a corrective element to make it fairer for the conservatives. Weir though that they should do so as it suggests that the conservatives have less support when in government in the country than other parties would.

Its nice to see that you included the final statement that concedes that AV has a 'very considerable avantage' in ensuring greater and fairer consituency representation. Perhaps you are not as blinkered as I firsttt thought :)

perhaps yes to AV will highlight how extremely unrepresentative and out of touch the conservatives are with the majority - perhaps this is the real reason for conservative leadership fear over AV rather than a real conviction that first past the post gives a more representative democracy!

(did you know for example that the conservative party have an average age of 68 )

Missing, I'm not blinkered at all, I quoted the full text as I have no axe to grind here. Besides, the unedited text makes it quite clear what conclusion was drawn with regards to AV.

As I said earlier, that what we are being offered here is a half hearted compromise that no-one really wants and no-one actually believes in.

I don't think this referendum has anything to do with improving democracy or proportionality. What is acutally on offer is the same old shit or more of the same old shit under a different name. Obviously Giddy Pickle puts it much more eloquently.

Labour won't move back to the left GothAnneGeddes. Sorry. You haveto look elsewhere for a real left alternative. They may now feign to be down with the workers but they're part of the problem.

AV will give a similar outcome in many elections. BUT it will solve the problem in some elections where, currently, an MP can get elected with only 30% or sometimes even 20% of the vote. Surely everyone agrees that this is not right. AV will correct this and will mean that the elected MP will have the support of a majority of their constituents.

So AV is fairer, more democratic, and ensures people are properly represented in parliament. Whats not to like?

AV is fairer, more democratic, and ensures people are better represented in parliament.

It is an improvement of FPTP, to bring it up to date now that people can count.

HH - no, AV does not mean MPs will have the support of a majority of constituents. That's the problem. It means, potentially, the candidate who is the second or third preference of those who cast their votes may well win. The least objectionable candidate. That's not the same thing as the most popular.

edam - Yes it does - it will mean they are prefered by more people than the other candidate who also didnt get a majority of support at the first count.

how is least objectionable not the same as most popular? is 'least biggest' different from 'smallest'? you are weird.

the least slowest runner wins the race

Haven't read whole thread but what I find odd is that with AV you have to list in order of preference. I don't have an order of preference, I have 1 candidate I want and the rest I don't. So will I never be able to vote again. I could never put the other two main parties as 2 and 3 on my preferences so would I have to put some weirdo party like UKIP. But then if everyone did that they might win.

So from me a massive NOOOOO. But I do think all constituencies should be the same size.

A gets 33% of the vote. B gets 30%, C gets 27 %, D gets 5%, Others make up 5%.

FPTP: A = 33%, A wins.
(33 % of people are happy.)

AV: A only has 33% and needs 17% more to win.
(C voters all support B, D and Others votes are evenly spread)
C, D and Others are out, so their voters can only vote for their 2nd choice. Votes are recounted.
A = 36%, B = 63%. B wins
(63 % of people are quite happy, 30% are very happy)

AV = more happiness :)

Oh good. I'll scale my opposition back to NOOO then!

Giddy - Nope: the current MPs were elected under FPTP, where only 33% can be happy (or less in some areas!).

So it is not surprising that people are very unhappy, because only 33% of people felt that their vote counted.

There are some MPs who did have over 50%.

So here, eg A = 55%, B = 30%, C= 10%, Others = 5%

FPTP: A wins, because they got more than B.

AV: A wins, because they have a majority of support from the voters.