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

[wannaBe]

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

Yes posters were up and leaflets were delivered. They had to be; otherwise it would have been a farce. I bet that when Scotland gets its vote for independence, there will be much more discussion of it on the public's media. No one will be in any doubt what it is all about and what they are voting for. No one will say "it's all too complicated". Everything will be explained by the public's media, paid for by the public. That is democracy - the people's media informing the people and letting the people make informed choices that can change their way of life for the better.

I agree with you GiddyPickle. It wasn't about real PR. We will never be given the chance to vote for real PR - we're only the people, we're only the voters, it's only democracy. I think KC and the Sunshine Band wrote a famous song about it, "That's the way, uh huh, uh huh, they like it".

Giddy: No I don't think that all the people who voted no are stupid or unable to understand what AV means. I can myself see arguments against it; who wouldn't, it's not a great system and it is not complicated. Pointing out the flaws and inadequacies of AV really doesn't take a genius and I can't think of a single person on the yes side who argued that AV was the best of all worlds. The argument was that AV was no worse than FPTP, slightly fairer and a step in the right direction. Pretty modest and truthful I think.

I don't think that either side had a monopoly on being well informed. I have a PhD and work in a university in a related field and everyone I know voted yes (for what that's worth) and we all thought the no case was particulalry dishonest and misleading. This does not mean that we don't know the difference between proportional and preferential of course. All of us, and there was a lot of talk about this in my department, saw AV as deeply inadequate, but believed that the no case would put proper reform out of reach for generations. And it has.

I understand AV perfectly well.
I listened to the arguments.
I voted no.
Simples.

Fair enough.

"We will never be given the chance to vote for real PR"

We've had the chance for at least the last 4 elections. We've had the option of voting LD into power. PR was one of the few policies that made them different to other parties and, if they'd had a parliamentary majority, PR would be on the statute books now.

I can hear people now shouting 'safe seats', 'unfair election system', 'tribal voting patters'... but if PR really had been a big priority for the electorate, they would have switched from traditional allegiances and voted accordingly. If the Scottish election results prove anything, it's that if people want something badly enough and vote in sufficient numbers, even a voting system designed to put certain parties at a disadvantage can be overcome.

'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.'

I cared enough to organise postal proxies from abroad as we are posted abroad. I didn't have any of the leaflets from either side of the campaign and voted No, as I don't think AV is a better system. I prefer to know for what and for whom I am voting, and what it is likely I will end up with as a government.

As for PR, be careful what you wish for - I live in a country which has PR for a voting system and currently holds the world record for not having a government. The stalemate here doesn't look as if it will be broken any time soon.

Essentially, everyone was voting negatively. The NO vote was clearly against AV and even among the YES vote there were people undecided until the end who didn't feel passionately but tried to look at it as a step towards PR.

Cameron gave Clegg a miserable little compromise for being a coalition partner and then argued that AV was a miserable little compromise. That's it.

Actually I know a number of people who voted this time that don't normally... simply because they wanted to vote No to AV. Highly unfair to say that only those that care voted Yes. What nonsense.

'Essentially, everyone was voting negatively.' Nope, mine was a positive vote for FPTP actually.

Obviously the no vote was against AV, as that was what the referendum was about.

It was clearly a vote for FPTP over AV - but not over PR as that was not the question.

I think Clegg should gave just started with reform of the House of Lords under PR. The argument for a Lord or religious representative in each constituency is harder to defend than in the Commons. You would instead get a list of candidates, ranked in an agreed order of preference by the parliamentary parties according to useful experience, and voted/selected according to proportion of the public vote for a fixed term, perhaps half of the chamber at a time to ensure balance and some continuity. Rather than inherited title or patronage by the PM. So where does this result leave the Lords?

'In fairness jenny60 I was responding to claig's posts earlier in the thread which said that people voted NO because they were ill informed and basically a bit ignorant of the facts.'

Giddypickle, that is a slight misrepresntation of my views. I think with more information, many more non-voters would have turned out for the 'Yes' campaign. I never said that people who voted 'No', were ill informed or ignorant of the facts. I don't think that 'No' voters like John Reid and David Blunkett were ignorant. In fact David Blunkett has got a degree in Political Theory.