AV Referendum

[Mankz]

Originally Posted by dancingbear84

At least one party would be ruling.

One of the funniest things I've read in a LONG time.

[tristanperry]

Originally Posted by dancingbear84

Oh dear god. Ignorance is not bliss. Voting reform is desperately required our FPTP system is hiddeously outdated and does not reflect the opinion of the country. Vote yes for AV!

Disagree.

Voted no on my postal vote 5 days ago, too.

[dancingbear84]

And the beauty if a democracy is your right your opinion. Vote yes, vote no. I don't care just vote don't be lazy and not bother, we are lucky enough to live in a country that allows you to vote on things like this.

[Quavr]

Originally Posted by dancingbear84

... Also the vote would allow for more proportional representation

I'm not sure how well I understand the AV system really, so I perhaps just need to read more on it, but I don't see how it allows more proportional representation?

Surely all it does is give everyone 1,2,3... votes, so no-ones vote means more than it did previously, and the party that would presumedly get the majority of 2nd or 3rd votes would be Lib Dems, as they are effectively the middle ground, so for every other party a voter goes for their vote is basically no better than previously?

[Lenderz]

Originally Posted by stefan442

do you not think its ironic that the system used to vote AV in is the system AV will replace!

Not as ironic that the fact that David Cameron was elected to the leadership of the conservative party using an AV vote, something I think about every time he bleats about how unfair they system is.

[Jehla]

Originally Posted by dancingbear84

At least one party would be ruling, not fighting each other

I was under the impression that one of the criticisms against AV was that it lead to more collolitions not less.

[tristanperry]

Originally Posted by Lenderz

Not as ironic that the fact that David Cameron was elected to the leadership of the conservative party using an AV vote, something I think about every time he bleats about how unfair they system is.

The Conservative party don't use AV to elect their leaders.

That's a 'Yes to AV' myth, just like the 'AV would make MPs work harder' myth.

Anywhoo, there you go. No need to think it anymore

[Stewb]

I'm still not entirely sure how I will vote, there are two issues with AV that still niggle:

The frequency of hung parliaments will increase, probably becoming the norm. This means that coalitions will also probably become the norm. That doesn't sit very will with me as I feel that will mean our politics will be decided in smoky rooms in agreements that don't necessarily bear any resemblance to pre-election "promises". Its a perfect get out of jail card...

Secondly, it doesn't fell right either that someone's second, third or even fourth choice should be as important as my first choice, I understand it would be impossible to agree on a weighting for choices apart from the first one but it just niggles.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by Stewb

snip...

Secondly, it doesn't fell right either that someone's second, third or even fourth choice should be as important as my first choice, I understand it would be impossible to agree on a weighting for choices apart from the first one but it just niggles.

Sounds like your a No then.

[sp4nky]

Originally Posted by Stewb

The frequency of hung parliaments will increase, probably becoming the norm. This means that coalitions will also probably become the norm. That doesn't sit very will with me as I feel that will mean our politics will be decided in smoky rooms in agreements that don't necessarily bear any resemblance to pre-election "promises". Its a perfect get out of jail card...

Where does this idea that AV will create more hung parliaments come from? Can you explain why it would mean that the big two parties will get any less seats than they do now?

[Stewb]

Originally Posted by Booga

Sounds like your a No then.

Well, I think I will vote No, but I'm still not fully decided, and I'm not a die-hard fanatic even if I do.

Originally Posted by sp4nky

Where does this idea that AV will create more hung parliaments come from? Can you explain why it would mean that the big two parties will get any less seats than they do now?

Well as far as I have been able to work out it is a more-proportional system, by no means proportional though. The Lib-Dems will get more seats under it from what I can gather, something ~70 seats IIRC. Which makes hung parliaments more likely. I may be entirely wrong but that it what I understand.

EDIT: In that case actually hung parliaments probably won't become the norm, just more likely.

[yodasarmpit]

Don't vote Yes just because FPTP is imperfect, as AV is also far from perfect.

Please vote for the right reason.

[Mankz]

I think AV is distinctly less perfect than fptp

[Stewb]

Off topic (only slightly), I have independently from 3 different councils received 3 voting cards, and each of them came with a form to fill in to vote by post... I didn't even try and I could commit voting fraud if I wanted...

[Mankz]

I've got 3 as well.

Hmm... to vote in Camden, Windsor or Weybridge....

[GeorgeStorm]

As far as I can see, the no2AV campaign is just full of fear tactics, with very few if any actual decent arguments :/
http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ

[Bogomip]

Originally Posted by sp4nky

Where does this idea that AV will create more hung parliaments come from? Can you explain why it would mean that the big two parties will get any less seats than they do now?

Because the system becomes fair for the lib dems, i.e. they get seats that represent the people who voted for them in, then hung parliament becomes more likely as there is less chance of their being a party with a majority seathold.

AV may lead to more hung parliament but people who use that as an excuse are essentially saying they dont care that the system is unfair, as long as someone clear wins (we dont care who, just let it be done!).

I think the current coalition is proof that a mixed government can exist and make just as many changes as a single ruling party.

AV is worse for the two big parties and better for the Lib Dems - the reason the conservatives dont like it is because the MPs they get as a result of the defective system which gives 10% of seats to 20% of the votes now more likely goto the party that got 20% of the vote. Lib Dem voters generally seem to side more with Labour than the Conservatives, so Labour are backing, too.

GeorgeStorm: The no campaign is full of fail - they need to make a public retraction of that leaflet, its absolutely criminal spewing lies like that. Of course they are free to flyer, convince people that AV is wrong, but if they have to lie about it what does that really say about them and the system?

[Pieface]

Surely, there are only more seats for the Lib Dems because of the fact people are voting tactically so Labour, or the Conservatives don't go into office. So it's not really proportional, it's just tactical voting (Which is what Yes To AV say will stop...)

[smart201]

anyone who thinks that we live in a fair and demacratic society and that there vote really counts or makes a diffrence is deluded, these so called politicans are nothing for than front men placed in power by the money men of our sick world to make me and you think we have a say when in all reality we dont have any say atall , and thats the truth !! so time to WAKE UP.

[tristanperry]

Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm

As far as I can see, the no2AV campaign is just full of fear tactics, with very few if any actual decent arguments :/
http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ

They make some decent points, but the no2AV campaign has been embarrassing overall, I agree.

Mind you, the yes2AV campaign has knowingly told quite a few outright lies, too.

Neither campaign is coming out smelling of roses so to speak.