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

[wannaBe]

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

Paul88. I honestly voted no because I believed that under AV the Labour party had more chance of getting in. I did not want that.

Triggles: "Actually, I just find it appalling that you think people voted against it simply because they didn't understand it."

I know my mum did. "Ooh, no dear, far too complicated", she trilled merrily. Mind you, she does read the Mail.

But Boulevard, I think that's a totally reasonable point of view as well. Elections are serious. They determine the course of the country for the next 5 years. And if a person has had a system explained to them, but they still don't understand it, I don't blame them at all for voting against it, otherwise they will be disenfranchised.

I voted NO because I don't think AV is a better or fairer system. I'd vote YES for PR as this is clearly the fairest system of all, but AV is a miserable compromise, which would cost money to administer that this country doesn't have.

i voted no because, like londonartemis said, it gives some people more than one vote.

i support a smaller party and they stand no chance of getting in under AV.

AV is slow and cumbersome (I've used it). And I want no part in ever allowing a party like the BNP to sneak a candidate into power by default and 2nd choices.

So I voted No.

And I am emphatically NOT a Tory.

Boulevard - yes, there possibly are some that didn't understand it. I just find it aggravating that someone is condescending and ASSUMING that's why people voted against it. As if anyone that doesn't agree with them is either stupid or simply trying to get back at a political party. Because it just doesn't occur to them that perhaps possibly maybe they might be gasp simply thinking for themselves and not agreeing that it's the best way.

I did contemplate doing a MN-spreadsheet. There seemed to be a lot of pro-AV posters, but I thought it might be my skewed view and wanted to count up properly. I then decided that life's too short!

However, it does seem that MN called the general election wrongly and have now called the referendum wrongly. We are not as representative as some would like to think.

Purits - I suspect MN is pretty widespread, but lots of people don't feel that strongly enough to post, or don't want to stick their necks out and get flamed if they do!

I voted no because I didn't think it was fairer.

It seemed beyond the comprehension of the yes campaign that people could possibly disagree with them except for naked self interest. Witness the hysterical "But is is FAIRER" squeaks and the trauma now it has been rejected. I have heard many explanations about why this happened, all based around stupid questions on the poll, unfair electioneering etc rather then the basic one of the public rejected it because they didn't want it.

I agree that mumsnet is not representative of the electorate.

OK so lots of people genuinely don't believe that it is fairer.

What about the London mayor?

It hasn't yet happened that the second preferences of the LDs make a difference to the winner but it still could.

If it did, how would you all feel? Is anyone going to start a campaign to change the system for the London Mayor before the next Boris vs Ken show?

I think what the London Mayoral system and FPTP both have in common is that they work OK. They may not be ideal and they may have flaws but they are not so terrible either for the majority of people. The LDs campaigned for decades on voting reform but I'm not sure that it was ever that high a concern on the priority lists of the average person. So starting campaigns to change something that works OK? We've seen how it ended up.

I think you'll also find that many people felt it was a waste to spend massive amounts of money implementing a new system when the current system actually works okay. Many are of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ilk. And with all the cuts going on, I think it's highly irresponsible to be putting money into something that doesn't need it at this point in time. It's not urgent, it's not necessary, so I believe many felt it was not something they were prepared to have the government throw money into at this time.

I think it was a variation of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". A lot of people thought that AV wasn't different enough.
If there was a big positive change then it might have been worth risking any down-side. But there wasn't any discernable benefit (how many times was it trotted out that recent elections would have had the same result under FPTP or AV) so why hazard the law of unintended consequences?

I voted yes so was too fed up to start a thread about a resounding defeat. There are some good reasons given here for people voting No, but I notice some of the Tory/John Reid lies misinformation sneaking in too.

Oh well. I've taken some comfort from the fact that my district was one of the few to vote yes.

I might be completley wrong about this, but I think that those of us who argued the yes case were in a decided minority here. I think MD did reflect the outcome.

I think we were probably in the majority on MN, but it was obvious that it was a lost cause and we would lose. The whole weight of spin was against us. There wasn't much discussion about it on TV etc. Most of the people in power never wanted any change. The unpopular Clegg was left flying the flag. They have very cleverly buried the issue for another generation. That is the end of PR, just as the major politicians always wanted.

It is sad to see socialists on talk shows saying it was a waste of money, and we should instead be spending money on hospitals and schools. They will never wake up; they will carry on believeing the same old, same old. Without a fair voting system that represents the people's wishes, nothing will change, and we can keep asking them to spend money effectively on hospitals and schools until the cows come home. This was a rare chance to change things. They had to give us the chance because the election result highlighted the unfairness of the way seats were allocated. Immediately after the election, most people wanted change. But they dragged it out, kicked it into the grass, and then finally gave us the chance, without giving it much discussion. They then told us we shouldn't even be having the chance; we should instead be talking about schools and hospitals. Plus ca change.

Even Clegg seems to want to move on. He says the decision was decisive, now we must move on. I didn't get the impression he was too upset about the decision.

What was Polly Toynbee's opinion on the AV vote? and what if anything did the Guardian back?

I accept that we lost. But I think the cards were stacked against us and against the people. The media has a huge influence in informing the public about the issues, but I think it did a poor job.

I want PR, but that doesn't mean I will vote LibDem, because I disagree with them on many other issues. That's why the people need to be given more referenda, so that they can vote on single issues.

The turnout was good because it was part of the council elections as well. If they had held the AV vote on its own separate day, I doubt it would have been as high, considering how ineffectively it was covered by the media.

I love this thread. "I think we were probably in the majority on MN, but it was obvious that it was a lost cause and we would lose. The whole weight of spin was against us. There wasn't much discussion about it on TV etc. Most of the people in power never wanted any change. The unpopular Clegg was left flying the flag. "
Are you saying that if only someone with a bit more charisma had come along and championed the cause, then the no voters would have seen the light? That's even worse than implying that epople voted no because they are too thick to understand how AV works.