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

[wannaBe]

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

Surely there is nothing more important than demoicracy and a democratic voting system? It is the responsibility of the public's media, the media funded by the public, to inform the public to the greatest possible degree about such a monumental possible change to our democracy. They could have cut back a few dancing and cookery programmes and ran more political programmes in the run up to such an important vote. But then the result might have been different.

No, it didn't matter how much charisma was on teh side of Yes to AV, because all of the big powerful forces were agin it. But it didn't help to have Clegg as the champion, since to many people he is already discredited. Most people didn't vote because they couldn't care less, but if the public media had done its job of informing the public, then they might have cared more and they may have had the chance to get better governments in the future - not the "they're all the same", "they're all in it together" lot that they usually get.

Do any Guardian readers know what the position of the Guardian and Polly Toynbee was out of interest? The Guardian enthusisatically backed Clegg for the election. My guess is that they didn't enthusiastically back him on AV, but I don't know.

You are right, democracy is important. A democratic decision has been made.

I wish we'd all spent more time in the last few weeks talking about the refendum and less about posh royal frocks.

The turnout was good nationally because it coincided with local elections in many places. ThaT suits the No campaign because they can say that that settles it, just as Mick Clegg has also said.

I doubt many people were so interested that they turned out to vote 'No to AV', except for Tory bigwigs and Labour bigwigs. Most people didn't really care. The people who did care were more likely to want change and vote Yes.

Good point MerylStrop. It was a very important vote, but it didn't receive the attention it deserved. It will be another 30 years before it comes round again.

Can you imagine a future vote for Scottish independence receiving so little quality coverage? Alex Salmond will make sure that everyone is informed of the arguments, and rightly so, as it is a huge potential change in how the Scottish people are governed. The bigwigs who are against it won't be able to control the agenda and the publicity that it receives, because Salmond is in charge.

You are making some sweeping statements here Claig. Most people didn't really care, and those who did were more likely to want change?? Really? So all those people who voted no obviousy gave no thought at all to their vote? You seem to be just completely ignoring the wishes of anyone who doesn't agree with you, and coming up with pretty flaky reasons why their opinion isn't valid.

'I know a lot of people who as it happens did not need the public media to inform them. I know people with degrees in politics, people who did Government and Politics at A Level and who have an active interest in the subject, people who studied history focusing on constitutional reforms, people whose job entails keeping up to date with political issues... basically people who even without vast media intervention know an awful lot about AV (and AV + and PR in all its various guises and every other system both enacted and hypothetical).'

I'm not on about them - the politicos and the party activists and the party members and the party bigwigs. I'm on about the ordinary people - Mrs Jones from number 22 - who gets shafted by the politicos every time. All the degree educated politics graduates and Guardian journalists don't have the same interests as the ordinary people. It was for the benefit of the people that the vote had to be offered, and the people's media should have made sure that the ordinary people were informed and could see through the agenda of the politics graduates and party wonks.

We all know that AV is crap, but it is a start on teh road to PR, and that is not crap. That offers the people the chance of having their voice heard. That will mean that the politicos won't be able to call people like Mrs. Duffy a bigot and ignore issues that the public care about. That might mean that we get a more representative government that has to take the students' concerns into consideration.

Who knows, a more representative government might even control the bankers? That's what the people want, the ones being laid off and losing their homes due to the disaster that the bankers gave us. If they had a government that listened to their voice, then that is what the government would do. But, instead , we'll get the same old, same old, and the politicos will tell us that they promise to spend more on schools and hospitals, so everything's OK and no need to change the voting system.

Bankers will get their bonuses, fat cats will prosper, the people will lose their jobs and homes, students will be in debt to their eyeballs and the party wonks will be happy that FPTP will remain and the people voted 'No to AV'. The BBC will show more dancing and cookery programmes and everything will carry on as normal.

Claig, I'm not sure what your issue with the Guardian is but it was very firmly pro-AV, as (I think) was Polly Toynbee.

Giddypickle I have a degree in Politics and studied electoral systems so I like to think I know a little more about this topic than I have read in the press over the last 4 months. I voted yes, not because AV is a good system per se but because in my view it is better than FPTP.

Good I'm glad to hear that the Guardian and Polly Toynbee were pro-AV. That has restored some of my faith in them, after the Guardian "enthusiastically" backed Nick Clegg for the election.

Polly Toynbee is spot on over her support for AV. All credit to her and the Guardian for their support of the people on this issue.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/14/vote-yes-for-av

claig I don't think The Guardian line on this issue made much of a difference. I know lots of Guardian readers who were more influenced by David Blunkett and John Reid etc. being against AV and were also put off by the celebrity endorsement.

Yes you're right, muminlondon. All of the big, important forces were against it. In comparison the Yes campaign was lightweight, and as you say backed by celebrities and luvvies. It is a great shame, but it was fairly obvious that it would turn out that way, when you looked at the lack of coverage and importance accorded to it, and you saw all of the important backers of the 'No' campaign. The majority of the people don't read the Guardian anyway, so it alone couldn't have much effect. I wonder whose side the Sun was on.

I too have a degree in Politics (and economics too), studied British Politics and Government at A level, and I am now a SAHM (and former primary teacher).

I didn't vote as I am currently resident in Australia, but watched the threads with interest. I didn't post as it's not my role to convince people one way or the other. Being in Aus, I didn't see the media campaign, I didn't read anything other about it than on here.

I would have voted no.

If it had been for full PR I would have voted yes.

It's simple really. AV is the worst of all possible worlds - it gives added weight to a whole raft of voters (and yes, Unions in the Milliband contest, I am talking about you) and decries the value of votes of others.

IMHO - Well done UK, you made the right choice.

Looks like The Sun was against it.

The real shame was that we didn't get a referendum on PR. I never expected the AV vote to get passed though I voted for it in the end, and I'm sure that's how Cameron calculated it would turn out. The debate ended up being about procedure and administration rather than how best to represent public opinion. It diverted attention from the unrepresentative nature of FPTP.

Thanks, muminlondon. No surprise about the Sun, supposedly "the people's paper". You're exactly right. It should have been about PR, but was about the crap AV, which was almost guaranteed to lose. They couldn't have chosen a better thing to vote for.

GapsAGoodUn - good to hear about your qualifications but AV did not give added weight to the unions in the Miliband contest.

Here is an example of a mayor getting in on second preferences.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Tyneside_Council_mayoral_election_2005

Supplementary vote which is the same idea as AV but you only get to say 1 and 2.

I still want to know how people would feel if this happened to you - londoners?

Giddy - you and many others keep saying that AV is no good compared to PR, so vote against. Can I ask if you personally would vote YES to PR given the opportunity?

I would have voted No.
I would also vote No for full PR.
Love 'em or hate' em I like living in a black and white, red and blue, right and slightly less right kind of world, me.

claig - not sure where you get the idea from that the 'ordinary people were not informed.' Yes leaflets and No leaflets were put through the door. I came across loads of discussions on radio and in the papers. I saw posters up for both sides. What else do you expect?
The bottom line is that it was rejected by a mixture of people with a mixture of understanding and motives. Such is life. Such is democracy.