AV referendum - how will you be voting and why?

[help_shiny]

But this is a stepping stone to PR, if we turn this down the powers that be will say none of us are interested in reform and are all happy with the way things are. Political reform will be kicked into the long grass for generations.

 

AV isn't great but it is better than FPTP - just look at the Canadian result today!

 

Saying No to AV is saying no to reform longer term.

 

 

I dont buy that it is a stepping stone to PR. It's a sop to kick PR into the long grass and to be forgotten for evermore. AV will lose but even if it won I strongly feel that would be that. "oh, but come come we've had a referendum for AV.Let's not change the system yet again. When will it end" etc etc

Plus the people who are shouting about AV will be well served by it. They wont want to dilute that by having PR. Take the Lib Dems for instance, they desperately want AV as it'll be a massive boost to them. They'd also, obviously, snatch your hand off for PR. But give them AV and if things pan out as they hope then you'll see they will quickly have no interest in PR. Why give up seats to the 'lunatics on the fringe' when you're guaranteed a major role in British politics forever more because both of the other two hate each other more than you?

AV's just a different way of serving up the same cake with the same ingredients, same chefs, same parties, same everything.

The whole AV sop by the Tories to the Lib Dems is just their way of killing off any chance of PR forever by serving up an extremely lukewarm version of it to be trounced in the poll.

Dems my beliefs anyway.

[beag_teeets]

Perfectly valid but just as your "we've had a referendum so stick with AV" line, IF and it will be a big IF electoral reform is ever mentioned again then the answer will be "We had a referendum, the people said no"

 

As with most things in this country, you don't get what you want, the best you can hope for is something slightly less worse than what you already have. AV is that in this case. If we make the leap to AV then it makes the leap to PR that little bit closer. No to AV makes that leap further away.

 

This referendum is a sop to the Lib Dems for hitching themselves to the tories for their lick of the shiny penny of power but lets try and make some good come out of it.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

This issue is such a no brainer I can't even believe there is a serious debate

 

Yes Yes Yes to AV

 

and hopefully in the future we'll get STV

[jimsleftfoot]

So the choices are either File Transfer Protocal or Audio Visual, but we don't get to vote for Public Relations.

 

I don't get it!!!

 

Ah thanks Dan Snow, I like pub more than coffee so i'm going to vote for Audio Visual.

[beag_teeets]

So the choices are either File Transfer Protocal or Audio Visual, but we don't get to vote for Public Relations.

 

I don't get it!!!

 

Ah thanks Dan Snow, I like pub more than coffee so i'm going to vote for Audio Visual.

 

 

FTP doesn't quite work as it is FPTP. Audio Visual, I'm happy with, Public Relations, again, I'm good, Transgender Scottish Virgins, we'll see at the time but FTP isn't cutting it for me.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

 

Haven't seen that before. That's quite funny.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I voted no, but I could easily have voted yes in the end. For me, it's the wrong question at the wrong time - all because the Liberals sold the shop for this relatively insignificant referendum during the coalition negotiations, while taking their eye off the ball when it comes to, for instance, the NHS. The question in the referendum should have been either, "Do you want to change the voting system?" or "Do you want AV, FTPT, STV, list top-up system, pure PR etc.?"

 

A proportional system is preferable, but it has costs, such as the loss of the constituency link and the emancipation of nutcases. That should have been an option, but the Liberals didn't hold out for it.

 

The Liberals also claim that AV will be fairer because they'll hold the balance of power. How would they play that? Let's forget the fact that the one time they did hold the balance of power, they went for the Tories. How does Clegg (or the next leader) act following a general election under AV? Do they opt to open negotiations first with the party that got the most first preferences, or the party that got the most preferences overall? The answer is they'll do what they want politically, which means they'll go with the Tories. That will also completely deaden future general election campaigns. Clegg broke a long tradition of Liberal leaders when he said during the campaign that he'd talk to the party with the most votes or seats, but you can bet your life he won't reveal his hand like that again. All the politics will happen after the campaign, in the Cabinet Office or the boozer, away from the prying eyes of Johnny Voter.

 

The yes campaign also claim that MPs will have to work harder. Apart from a few real lazy ones in really safe seats (both main parties), MPs actually work quite hard. Even the lazy ones have to maintain some sort of presence. In marginal seats, MPs currently spend basically all their time campaigning locally. MPs in safe seats don't even campaign during a general election campaign. This tends to disfranchise Labour voters in, say, Christchurch, and Tory voters in Bootle, but I'm not sure I want MPs campaigning all the time. They've got legislation and policy to scrutinise, among other duties. The current system produces some unfortunate outcomes, but if "working harder" means "campaigning", I'd rather they didn't.

 

The no campaign is overwhelmingly supported and funded by Tories. You can kick them by voting yes. People in the no camp say that you can kick Clegg and the Liberals by voting no. Either kick isn't wasted, but I come down on the side of thinking that the more painful kick is to Clegg. Cameron doesn't give a monkeys. He'll get his soon enough anyway.

 

The Liberals are idiots for thinking that they'll get more votes or seats under AV, and that AV will produce more proportional results. If people think their vote for a minor-party headcase is actually going to count, they're not going to bother voting Liberal anymore. Liberals are idiots for many other reasons, and unpleasant too, so if they're offering something, I'll generally forego it for something else.

 

Looks like no will win anyway, so at least I'll have voted for the winner for a change.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I voted no, but I could easily have voted yes in the end.

Hardly surprising

 

This referendum has got bugger all to do with Clegg or Cameron. This has to do with how YOU want to elect your politicians.

 

It's a simple case of AV is better than FPTP. Not as good as STV, but a step in the right direction (and hopefully a step away from tribal politics altogether). Do you seriously think by turning down the chance to change the system slightly you will be given another chance in the next few decades to change it more substantially?

 

In the last election the guy I voted for came in last. In that instance (assuming the woman who won didn't have 50%) my vote would have gone to my second choice, (and that still wasn't her). This is about making sure that candidates are less likely to win seats where most of the constituents are firmly opposed to them.

 

I must say hats off to the "no" campaign. Their aggressively marketed fallacious spin arguments have certainly won them the day on this one if, as looks likely, the "no"s come out on top tomorrow.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Hardly surprising

 

This referendum has got bugger all to do with Clegg or Cameron. This has to do with how YOU want to elect your politicians.

 

It does a bit. They are the front men of the campaign. This is about the balance of the deal struck in May 2010. It shouldn't be, because the question is serious enough in its own right. That's why it's the wrong question and the wrong time. The whole thing is too charged with politics.

 

It's a simple case of AV is better than FPTP.

 

Better as in inherently fairer? Not sure. Better as in more favourable outcomes? The outcomes will be favoured by some but not by others. That's politics.

 

Not as good as STV, but a step in the right direction (and hopefully a step away from tribal politics altogether). Do you seriously think by turning down the chance to change the system slightly you will be given another chance in the next few decades to change it more substantially?

 

Let's be clear about this. This is a 50-year settlement either way. Let's suppose that Clegg once again holds the balance of power come the next general election. Is he seriously going to hold out for another voting system referendum when the British public thought they'd settled the question just four years previously? Are we going to have a referendum on the voting system during every Parliament for ever? I'll tell you what that will look like: a fix. It will look like one group of politicians holding out for a change in the system because the current one does not favour them. If they'd have waited we might have a real choice on voting come the next general election. Why didn't Clegg just say, "If we can't have a PR referendum for Commons elections, we'll settle for a referendum on having a PR list system for an elected House of Lords"? Answers on a postcard, but you won't be far wrong if you say something like, "Because he's a crap politician and a bit thick."

 

In the last election the guy I voted for came in last. In that instance (assuming the woman who won didn't have 50%) my vote would have gone to my second choice, (and that still wasn't her). This is about making sure that candidates are less likely to win seats where most of the constituents are firmly opposed to them.

 

That sounds like the AV system is a system whereby you vote for candidates in reverse order. Your actual preference is negative (I don't want him/her). As far as I'm concerned, one of the strengths of the FPTP system is that your vote is a positive one (I want him/her). If more people want someone than they want someone else, they have a winner. Under FPTP, when they are elected, politicians of all colours say things like, "I intend to represent all my constituents, not just the ones who voted for me." There's a chance that such a noble sentiment will be lost under AV. Instead, they might say something like, "The whole constituency is behind me," when it plainly is not. They might even say things like, "My constituents hate me less than they hate the other punter."

 

I must say hats off to the "no" campaign. Their aggressively marketed fallacious spin arguments have certainly won them the day on this one if, as looks likely, the "no"s come out on top tomorrow.

 

To be fair, I'm disgusted with both sides. The ultimate blame for that is with the Liberals. Having this referendum question right now ensured that the campaign was more party political than it ought to have been. They were warned, but as usual, they :censored:ed everything up for themselves. C'est la vie.

[Zorrro]

24hrs in diatribe against the Liberal Democrats. Quelle surprise.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

24hrs in diatribe against the Liberal Democrats. Quelle surprise.

 

 

I thought I was being magnanimous.

[garcon]

To be brutally honest, 24hrs is mostly right this time.

 

It is certainly the wrong question at the wrong time. And a pathetic compromise by a party that has always supported 'real' PR.

 

In the end I voted YES, but it could easily have been NO, so I suppose we balanced each other out.

 

The NOs will win, and it's probably the right result - we need a much bigger shift in culture at Westminster before a more collaborative style of government can work ... and we need a better option than AV.

[Stevie_J]

I almost didn't vote on AV but, in the end, voted against.

 

Pathetic, watered-down measure, compared with PR, a referendum on which I thought was supposed to be the Lib Dems main condition in buddying up to the Tories.

 

A niggling dislike of the idea of BNP votes being poured back into the pot to decide things swayed me.

[Ackey]

I almost didn't vote on AV but, in the end, voted against.

You voted. That's the main thing.

[leeslover]

You voted. That's the main thing.

As I put in another place, today I remembered why my grandfather fought against Hitler. It was military conscription. I've no problem for people for whom it's a special day or whatever, but for me I don't bother because there is zero chance of my action changing the result, whatever the voting system. All the systems are equally rotten, anyone who seriously cared about their voting count might consider ideas such as returning tax, spending and control of branches of the government to a local level. If Royton Council had a party proposing to raise taxes by 10% and cut spending on old folks homes to double school spending and another wanting to stay as they were, your vote might just count and people might care. One in 30 million, it's meaningless.

[beag_teeets]

Looking like - John Cleese, Colin Firth, Dr Scholl, your boys have taken one hell of a beating.

[leeslover]

Scotland and Wales are all a bit mixed up. That's what comes of being nationalists in power who don't actually fancy footing the bills I guess.

[latic12345]

 

It's a simple case of AV is better than FPTP.

 

That's a bold statement right there.

 

The way I see it is that AV, in so many ways, accentuates the problems with FPTP and delivers very few (a minute number) of benefits. Only 3% more deats will be contestable in the UK under AV. Wrong question, wrong time. Most of the country are NFI.

 

However, I will commend David Cameron on a great bit of politiking. He got a question most people will say no to. He's also managed to shift the blame of the cuts onto the Lib Dems. A professional politician that (much like Blair).

[oafc0000]

I find it amazing the Lib Dems ever accepted a referendum on AV... Its compromised the whole issue on electoral reform. I doubt there will be a vote on PR in my lifetime now.

 

Another thing the Lib Dems sold out on all for a fancy car and title...

[oafc0000]

That's a bold statement right there.

 

The way I see it is that AV, in so many ways, accentuates the problems with FPTP and delivers very few (a minute number) of benefits. Only 3% more deats will be contestable in the UK under AV. Wrong question, wrong time. Most of the country are NFI.

 

However, I will commend David Cameron on a great bit of politiking. He got a question most people will say no to. He's also managed to shift the blame of the cuts onto the Lib Dems. A professional politician that (much like Blair).

 

He is nowhere near as good a politician as Blair...

Edited May 6, 2011 by oafc0000

[Stitch_KTF]

I didn't vote as I don't vote and so have no regard for minor intricacies of the voting system.

[help_shiny]

I didnt vote as I think I've got alcohol poisoning from a sesh on Wednesday and upon getting home and faced with the choice of going to bed feeling sorry for myself or going out to vote there was only one winner.

The next time someone offers me free beer all day I might, just might, say no. Bleurrrrggghhh

[beag_teeets]

Labour have got control of Bury after the final seat was tied, 3 counts showed it was tied so they had to draw lots as per the rules and Labour won. Bizare!

 

As for AV, I think it is fair to say it has been defeated, however just been talking about it and this might actually be a good result. I had always assumed that this would mean reform would be forgotten about, most of my posts on here say this. However, as the Lib Dems have suffered badly in local elections it might lead to some blood letting within the party and actually keep reform firmly on the agenda.

 

Interesting times.

[leeslover]

It doesnt matter whats on the lib dems agenda as they wont see power again before big gordon sees his toes. Labour didnt introduce PR during 3 terms of whapping majorities and the tories arent keen. I think yesterday was the tories day. The people who now hate the lib dems would always have voted anti tory anyway, labour have less to gain from their collapse.

[JoeLatics]

All over bar the shouting, but oh well -

 

If Clegg wants it, it must be :censored:e.

Nick Griffin wants a No vote!

 

 

Basically, if you vote for AV, you're voting for a semi-permanent ConDem coalition. If that floats your boat, your answer is yes. If it doesn't, your answer is no.

 

God only knows WTF Ed Miliband is thinking.

Australia (which uses AV) has only ever had 1 hung parliament - we've had several.

 

Bringing it down to party politics was stupid. We can wave goodbye to any kind of decent system for another 30 years, now.