so, no threads about how AV has been resoundingly rejected then?

[wannaBe]

given the amount of threads in the run-up I am surprised.

Gosh, wasn't that AV resoundingly rejected?

Yep, clear result. Voted Yes.

Maybe it would have been better to go for PR.

Not a lot to say really, the result was expected.

If the polls are close towards the next election it will be back on the agenda as a sweetner to (if they are very lucky) a revived and Clegg free LD's.

Things change, Scottish devolution was rejected in a poll 1979 (albeit a gerrymandered poll) yet now the SNP are in power.

I was thinking of starting a thread, asking for people to honestly say why they voted NO.

Now there is nothing to win or lose, why not come out and admit that, yes AV is clearly a fairer system for electing a single constituency MP and that the reasons for voting NO are (a) You are a tory supporter and afraid that it will harm tory prospects in the future (b) you are a labour supporter and afraid it will harm labour prospects in the future (c) you are a labour supporter and want to punish the lib dems.

I know the NO people went on about people being too thick to understand AV but I think most people probably can understand it, and most people probably saw through at least some of the c**p spouted by the NO campaign - but repeated it because of one of the reasons above.

I voted No - but I put yes as my second choice...

(Sorry, saw that somewhere and couldn't resist!)

Actually I voted no because I think it's a crap system and makes no sense at all, will skew the way people vote etc. Nothing to do with voting tory. MN is too quick to blame everything they don't like on a few tory voters. Just because you don;t agree with someone it doesn't mean their opinion is not valid

I voted no as I don't believe the system is fairer. I would rather have the most popular first choice candidate as the winner than the compromise candidate no one really disliked but didn't really believe in strongly.

If someone won in, for example, a similar way the way Ed Milliband won - so had less votes in the first two rounds than the other candidate but had a majority third choice so sneaked through, then I would feel that they had a considerably less mandate to govern than someone who won as first choice under a FPTP system, even if they won by a small majority. So that makes it less fair to me.

You can bang on about what YOU think is fair till the cows come home, but you might have to accept at some stage that the majority of people don't agree with you. Not because they're stupid but because they have looked at the facts and reached a different conclusion to you.

I've heard convincing arguments for FPTP, PR and even for how a non-party base parlimentary system would work. But I've never heard an argument on AV where I thought it seemed particularly convincing, the best I saw on a leaflet was "Vote AV so your MP will have to work harder", which was a pathetic argument really.

"Now there is nothing to win or lose, why not come out and admit that, yes AV is clearly a fairer system for electing a single constituency MP and that the reasons for voting NO are (a) You are a tory supporter and afraid that it will harm tory prospects in the future (b) you are a labour supporter and afraid it will harm labour prospects in the future (c) you are a labour supporter and want to punish the lib dems."

Sorry, but I find this just a bit offensive. Perhaps you feel AV is "clearly a fairer system" however, not everyone agrees with you - as is perfectly obvious by these recent results. I don't particularly think it's the best approach to demand that people justify their voting preference to you so that you can then attack their decisions. You're certainly not going to win anyone over by that method, IMO.

I voted 'no' because I didn't think AV was fairer, I had too many supposedly intelligent people ask me to explain it in the last week or two to think that it was as simplistic as the 'yes' campaign claimed and any advantages that I could identify weren't good enough to justify the upheaval of change. Nothing to do with supporting or punishing anyone.

Someone made the very good point last week that when asking a population to make a very significant change the default position is 'no change'. It is up to those who want the change to emphatically make their case. I simply don't think the 'yes' campaign made their case.

I would have voted 'no' up to a week or so ago when I heard Caroline Lucas argue with David Owen that although it wasn't as good as PR, it would have signalled a willingness to reform.

In the end, the vote proves only that most people disagree with AV and distrusted the motives of the Lib Dems for championing it (i.e. - self-interest). It doesn't prove that the public prefrs FPTP to PR because that was never the vote. But we'll never know about that, because there won't be another vote on the issue for a generation. Cameron stitched that one up brilliantly, I'm sad to say.

I voted no - party politics aside (it wasn't about that for me!!) - the AV was just another bad choice and seemed to want to elect MOP on a best of the worst type of voting.

People are unable/unwilling to make a mark on a ballot paper every five years - with AV you wouldn't have to just ask them to make a mark but then rank the options ... just too much work and doesn't take into account those we really DON'T want ... almost having to vote UKIP to keep BNP out ...

A year ago I'm sure I would have voted for AV as a step towards PR. I have always thought my vote didn't count in a FPTP election. I am a rare being in these parts.....a labour voter in a very safe tory seat. I have never voted for the winner in any election and that includes parish and borough elections.

Even I voted No! I was voting against the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg. Shame that to do this I had to vote the same as most tories. I voted labour as usual in the local elections and as usual they came a very poor second.

AV was a 'dirty little compromise' and most people evidently agreed with that sentiment.

OK - sorry - no intention to be offensive. But is it more offensive to suggest that people don't understand the system or that they voted against for party political reasons?

(I know, I sound arrogant now...)

It is a fact that quite regularly someone will win in FPTP who would lose in a head to head against one of the other candidates.

This can also happen in AV but much less often - and in a case where it does happen in AV it is guaranteed to happen in FPTP.

In the Ed Miliband case - he would have won in a head to head against his brother. So it was right that he got the job. Narrow margins are always going to be uncomfortable whatever the system.

Surely this is a simple enough argument for AV?

Does anyone think we should change the mayoral elections to FPTP? Why does no elected body set up in the last few decades use FPTP? Why does no other country in Europe use it?

I fully accept that people had strong party political reasons for voting against and indeed considered it myself.

It is also possible that the obfuscation by those wanting to get a NO result confused people. But it isn't really hard to understand...

Actually, I just find it appalling that you think people voted against it simply because they didn't understand it. And yes, you sound arrogant. And it's comments like those that make some even more determined to be against it, as it seems to unfortunately be those militantly pushing AV on everyone else that are so vocal and condescending about it. Do yourself and your cause a favour... back off and stop pushing people so hard and acting like your choice is the only choice that matters. It's not.

Giddy, interesting that you share Paul88's concerns about tactical voting.

And what about the turnout? 70% (No vote) of 40% (turn out) is, er ... about 30%? OK it's twice as much as the Yes voters managed, but it's still not exactly representative.

Should we make the next referendum compulsory?

i think all voting should be compulsary anyway. I doubt if we will have another referendem on this for many years.

I voted No.
I don't think AV is fairer. Why should someone who votes for the candidate who comes last, get a their second choice vote taken into consideration, when someone whose candidate came first or second etc doesn't. AV gives some voters more than one vote. That's simply NOT FAIR>

For the record - (c), along with a lot of other people I know...

I think the problem you have (in common with the large amoutn of people in the YES vote camp) is that you say "If they went head to head then the other candidate would have won" and that really is your trump card.

From my perspective I disagree with that argument because they're NOT going head to head. There are other parties in the vote. And I firmly believe that if you believe in a party you vote for them, no second and third choice votes to allow you to have a wish list of options. I would be more on board with the idea of second choice votes counting for 2/3s of a vote and third choices counting for 1/3 of a vote maybe, with whoever ended up in front at the end winning (although I wouldn't be voting yes for it), but I believe you cast your vote for the party you believe in, and if you don't believe in them enough to chose them then you don't vote for them.

(b), (c), & it's a crap system anyway.