Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

AV or not ?

334 replies

theoldbrigade · 20/04/2011 19:00

Thoughts please.

OP posts:
skaen · 20/04/2011 19:17

Yes.

skaen · 20/04/2011 19:19

I think AV would be better than the current system where a few occupants of a very few seats hold the balance of power for the government. It would mean people had to work a bit harder to win which is a good thing.

GiddyPickle · 21/04/2011 00:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LilyBolero · 21/04/2011 00:20

NO from me.

madhattershouse · 21/04/2011 00:20

YES!!! In many areas there are safe seats..AV would mean that in some of those your vote would actually count! Not in mine though..too safe waiting for real PR! Won't hold my breath though Angry

madhattershouse · 21/04/2011 00:22

I see the point Giddy but it is the first step..remember the order hates change. PR is the next step..we have to try this first!

annaquangel · 21/04/2011 00:25

Yes.

My fear is that if we say no to AV, that will be seen as a green light for the current system, which is demonstrably crap.

Any change is better than no change.

annaquangel · 21/04/2011 00:27

Also I really want my views to be better represented. I will vote for the greenest candidates, in order of greenness. If we all vote like that, it'll be much clearer which policies are widely supported.

We could get a lot more women into parliament too.

MotherSnacker · 21/04/2011 08:18

YES. The chance for reform might not come again. It is a step in the right direction.

meditrina · 21/04/2011 08:22

Is AV the system which gave us Ed, not David, Miliband?

Chil1234 · 21/04/2011 08:33

I'm in the 'no' camp. Disagree with the sentiment that 'it's better than nothing' and think the current system at least results in speedy transition of workable government.

GiddyPickle · 21/04/2011 09:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Niceguy2 · 21/04/2011 12:33

Any change is better than no change.

I completely disagree with this. Sometimes the right thing to do is nothing. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Original poster
theoldbrigade · 21/04/2011 12:52

I feel so ambivalent on this one which is not like me at all normally !
Have enjoyed reading these opinions - has made me think , I mean really think.
Have voted for one party all my life but never has that party been elected in any constituency in which I have lived. Am I bitter - damn right - but that is not the point is it ?
Still have an idealistic view that when push comes to shove we all want the same thing - stable government. May not agree but at least you know where they stand. I find coalitions a nightmare - manifestos go out the window and everything becomes a compromise and so diluted you are never sure what was promised in the first place .

OP posts:
jenny60 · 21/04/2011 13:00

Yes. It is a miserable compromise but I fear that if the vote is lost any momentum for proper change will be lost too. It would be too easy for anti PR people to argue that if the country couldn't vote yes to AV, there is no point in even discussing PR.

DottyDot · 21/04/2011 13:05

It's a no from me. Have just started to understand AV so let me know if I'm wrong on this, but doesn't it mean that potentially those who've voted in the most extreme way (e.g. BNP/Monster Raving Looney etc.etc.) could get their second choice votes counted, with equal weighting to everyone else's first choice?!

This seems quite barking mad, frankly...

Chil1234 · 21/04/2011 13:18

Potentially, yes. But only if the first-place candidate didn't get >50% of the votes on the first round. Those who vote for the last-place candidate (who is eliminated) have their second choices taken into account. This keeps going until one candidate has 50%+

I agree 100% with theoldbrigade's fears on 'manifestos going out of the window'. Maybe not so much with AV but certainly PR. The result may be fairer and more representative on paper but even those who vote for the bigger parties don't get quite what they expected - as we've seen in the last year. PR is marketed as engaging more people in politics but I could see how a built-in post-election blurring of commitment would put more people off.

GiddyPickle · 21/04/2011 13:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bemybebe · 21/04/2011 13:23

No from me. Do not see the point.

DillyDaydreaming · 21/04/2011 13:26

The fact that Nick Griffin is anti AV is enough to send me to the Yes please camp

Original poster
theoldbrigade · 21/04/2011 13:26

Think that is not quite right as there would be no obilgation to vote for more than one candidate if you so wished. By the law of averages the "idiot " fraternity would be ruled out PDQ !!

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 21/04/2011 13:31

Nick Griffin still fondly believes his party can win under FPTP.... as Shakespeare put it 'the triumph of hope over experience'.

jenny60 · 21/04/2011 13:49

Manifestos counting for little or nothing is a fact of life already, nothing to do with PR, AV or FPTP. What poltical party didn't dismantle theirs after being elected? Look at what we have now under FPTP. Tuition fees anyone?

GiddyPickle · 21/04/2011 15:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jenny60 · 21/04/2011 16:08

I'm not personally against tution fees at all, just pointing out the absurdity of the argument that getting rid of FPTP somehow guarantees that manifesto promises will be more likely to be kept. I chose it because it was the most glaring and recent one I could think of. I could list plenty of others broken by all the major parties.