The AV referendum - 5th May

[Jason Thompson]

The more I think of it the more I can't see that much difference between the outcomes of a vote cast on either system. There are so many parties with so little inspirational material now that in the one system you're most likely to end up with a government that most people did not want as their first choice, and in the other you're most likely to end up with, well, a government that most people didn't want as their first choice. AV gives you the chance to suggest second, third or however many preferences, but does not require you to do so, thus making it a far more cumbersome system than simply requiring everyone to rank first, second and third choices. Under the guise of giving more freedom to the voters, they've proposed a far more woolly system of voting.

The cynic in me also has not failed to notice that the problems with the first past the post system have been manifest for some time, but it's only now that we've ended up with a very unpopular government as a result of a hung parliament, and a government that was always going to have to make very hard and unpopular decisions, that such a big thing is being made of an alternative system of voting.

I don't see AV as a miracle cure for the problems of first past the post. I don't even see it as being that much better, frankly. As I said, the more I think of it, the more I fail to see a real difference in the outcome. No system that requires the winning party to secure over 50% of the votes can be considered overly sensible in a system that has more than two political parties. The problems do not lie in the voting system, they lie in the failure of any major political party to motivate people to vote for them in huge numbers. That is where the change needs to be made.

[Rob McCow]

The introduction of AV may go some way to encouraging the parties to 'perk up' a bit in their engagement of voters, because the number of safe seats is likely to go down. That makes it marginally better than FPTP in my view, so I'll vote yes.

There's a slim chance that it'll upset the usual way of running things. In that respect, even the smallest of changes should be grasped.

It's not exactly modern and progressive, but it's not quite so old, complacent and mouldering as the existing system.

[Lissa]

If there is a No vote in this referendum then that will be taken as a mandate for the current system to remain for at least another generation. Any attempt to change the voting system will be rejected because of the 2011 vote. We're not given a referendum on Europe because the one in 1975 is still considered a mandate for them to do anything they want. AV may not be perfect but if there is a mandate to change the voting system to make it more representative then it opens the door for further changes in the future.

[Larry]

I don't see AV as a miracle cure for the problems of first past the post.

problem is A.V, is going to be a complete waste of time in many areas you take where I live in Wokingham, where my M.P has a magority of 6 to 7,000 and there is more chance of hell freezing over than there is of the Conservitives losing Wokingham. But what dose concern me is that if the local elections have a low turn out of say for arguments sake 70% A.V, could get through with most of the country not wanting it.

[Dirk Gently]

If there is a No vote in this referendum then that will be taken as a mandate for the current system to remain for at least another generation. Any attempt to change the voting system will be rejected because of the 2011 vote. We're not given a referendum on Europe because the one in 1975 is still considered a mandate for them to do anything they want. AV may not be perfect but if there is a mandate to change the voting system to make it more representative then it opens the door for further changes in the future.

Exactly why I'm voting yes. Any change will be good because if it fails then they have to give the voting public more chances to change it/reject it & a yes vote will show that the current system is not wanted either.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

How about leaving the voting system as it is, but making politicians/parites accountable to their election manifesto in some way, shape or form? THAT would be a big change. Until that happens then we're not really living in a "democracy" anyway.

[Rob McCow]

It's a shame that the manifestos frequently turn out to be a book of impossible promises.

Another conversation was killed last night by the mention of AV. People don't want to hear about it. I kind of think that if you give any kind of a crap about democracy, then you should vote one way or another. Of course, it's your right not to vote and to stay at home. But you really, really should vote, whether it's Yes or No. Make your opinion count in some small way.

[Larry]

well we received our A.V , info leaflet the other day I've ha a brief look through it and there dosen't seem to be anything to say whether or not you must tick all the boxes on the ballott paper. I certainly hope you don't have to because there is no way I want to vote for the BNP, or UKIP.

[Jason Thompson]

well we received our A.V , info leaflet the other day I've ha a brief look through it and there dosen't seem to be anything to say whether or not you must tick all the boxes on the ballott paper. I certainly hope you don't have to because there is no way I want to vote for the BNP, or UKIP.

I'm sure the leaflet clearly says that you can rank as many or as few candidates as you choose. That's a bit woolly, I think. I'd prefer a system of nominating a top three rather than 'rank who you fancy'.

[Si Hunt]

kind of think that if you give any kind of a crap about democracy, then you should vote one way or another. Of course, it's your right not to vote and to stay at home. But you really, really should vote, whether it's Yes or No. Make your opinion count in some small way.

But how is voting "making your opinion count" if you don't have one? If it's all too confusing for you to form an opinion, surely all voting randomly will do is distort the results?

Si.

[Rob McCow]

You should read the literature (there's not that much of it), form an opinion and vote. It's important. It's not hard to understand the information. Either you think the current system is alright, or you think AV would be better.

I reckon there'll be a 10-15% turn-out for the referrendum, because people simply don't care, when they should. We've got an opportunity to actively participate in our democracy and I strongly believe we should make the most of it.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Our "democracy" consists of having one vote every five years. We don't get to vote directly on what we want, we just get a choice between 3, basically 2, parties and we have to hope that one of them has a bunch of policies that broadly agrees with what we want, but we don't really have a say in what those policies are, nor do we have any way of holding them to anything they say running up to the election, nor is there any penalty for them going against their pledges. And it's not as if it's even a rare occurence - I can't think of a single government in my lifetime that HASN'T significantly gone against what they said they would do.

It's an illusion of democracy at best. And now we have a referendum on changing the voting system, but we don't have any say on what to change it TO, we just get given one (rubbish) choice. The MPs will then apparently have a vote in which they can overrule a Yes vote anyway. We don't have any say where the constituency boundaries are.

We don't actually really have much of a say in anything that happens, we just like to think we do.

[Si Hunt]

What about if you don't really have a preference?

Si.

[Rob McCow]

Then you should read up about the pros and cons of each option and form a preference.

[Philipnet]

Have a look at the Alternative Voting system from a Coffee or Beer perspective:

• http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/28...ng-altern.html

[Rob McCow]

http://youtu.be/HiHuiDD_oTk

Explained with cats. Above - cat-tastic vid.

[Philipnet]

You know,
neither of them have convinced me to change my view on AV.
Which is a good thing as I have already voted by post.

[Rob McCow]

OK, in case there's anyone still interested:

Please go out and vote 'Yes to AV' tomorrow. It's a little bit better than our current system.

I have no doubt that First Past The Post was entirely appropriate in the Victorian era, before women had the vote and Britain became a diverse and multicultural society.

AV could drag our voting system from the 19th Century to the 20th. It's not perfect, but it is better.

Here's some reasons from The Independent.

1. AV places greater power in the hands of voters. Under first past the post, voters face the prospect of "wasting" their vote if they do not put their cross in the box of one of the larger parties. Under AV, people will be able to list their candidates in order of preference, knowing that if their first choice is unlikely to have an influence on the ultimate result, their second probably will.

2. AV strengthens the democratic mandate of our elected representatives. Adopting the new system will mean that those MPs returned to Parliament will, in most cases, enjoy the backing of a majority of their constituents.

3. AV will encourage MPs to reach out to the broader electorate. Under first past the post, a candidate can be elected by appealing to a minority of constituents. Two-thirds of MPs in the House of Commons at the moment were elected without the support of a majority of their constituents. Under AV many more of our MPs will have to pay attention to those voters not already inclined to vote for them.

4. AV will make MPs less complacent about their chances of retaining their seat at elections. There are likely to be fewer safe seats under AV. This will mean that candidates who at present can be pretty confident of being returned to Parliament so long as they have the right rosette next to their name will have to put more effort into winning support.

5. AV will be a step to a more fully democratic voting system. It is a relatively small distance from AV to a fully proportional voting system such as AV-plus. Historically, Britain has always done democratic reform by incremental stages. Adopting AV will be one more – important – step forward.

Feel free to argue against me! But I'm certain that AV would be a fairer system of voting than the one we have at present.

[SiHart]

I agree. AV might be a flawed system but it's a damn sight less flawed than the system we use at the moment.

And, since the parties that are trying to tell us not to use it, use it for their own Party Ballots/ elections, it must be an all right system, mustn't it?

[Paul Clement]

I don't think AV goes far enough, but it's a step in the right direction of Proportional Representation, and will get my yes vote.

[Jason Thompson]

I'm not convinced Av is any better, and it doesn't solve the main problems with the way government is formed (the difference between choosing a local MP and a national government, the inability of any of the parties to appeal to a wider section of the electorate, and so on), but it is the first time we've been offered any chance to change the way we choose our MPs, and I think it is important to show that we are willing to take that chance. AV may not be the perfect solution, but if we work to change the system once we have more chance of being able to change it in future. If we say no now, as I believe Lissa said upthread', any future proposal for decades hence will be greeted with 'well we offered you the chance to change things back in 2011 and you said no, so obviously the current system doesn't need changing'.

[SiHart]

Long, but a thorough blog on the subject that's well worth a read: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/...ter-than-fptp/

[Si Hunt]

I'm sick of hearing about it!

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Well, sorry Si, but it is just a touch on the important side....

[Andrew Curnow]

Is it though? It's not like it's a referendum being called 'by public demand' or anything, it's as far as I can see something the Tories agreed to as part of the coalition deal last year and have now got to go through with. I've yet to find anybody really that bothered about it.

That said... I will be making sure I vote tomorrow, and voting No. My main beef with it is this - rightly or wrongly, our political system is largely based on 'opposing' views. If you really agree with the Tories, you probably won't agree with Labour, and vice versa. So if you have a definite first choice, would you really have an obvious second choice? It seems to me that this system is more likely to result in people seeing their 'also ran' choice elected, which in many cases would (IMHO) be a very poor second to their first choice.

I also don't really see what's so abhorrent about the notion of the person with the most votes getting the win. It may not even be 50%, maybe not even 40%, but it's clearly the most popular choice.

To be honest, I wouldn't like to see us switch to AV, and my 'big worry' about tomorrow is that so many people don't care, that it's possible many people who don't really want a change won't bother to vote, and a lot more of those who are pushing for the change will - resulting in a very low turnout, but a majority for AV amongst those who vote.

But is it important? Only because we've now got a referendum for it - if the vote hadn't been called, it would be a really very unimportant thing indeed!